Preamble

The House met at Twelve of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair

PRIVATE BILLS.

Glasgow Water and Tramways Order Confirmation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Aberdeen Corporation (Administration Finance, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill,

Read a Second time; to be considered upon Tuesday, 16th January.

PRIVATE BILLS

THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS reported, that, in accordance with Standing Order 87, he had conferred with the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, for the purpose of determining in which House of Parliament the respective Private Bills should be first considered, and they had determined that the Bills contained in the following List should originate in the House of Lords, namely:

Brighton Marine Palace and Pier.
Commercial Gas.
Coventry Corporation.
Farnham Gas and Electricity.
Freemasons' Lodges.
Gosport Water.
King Edward the Seventh Welsh National Memorial Association.
Lipton Trust.
London County Council (General Powers).
Northallerton Urban District Council.
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
South-Eastern Gas Corporation Limited (Associated Companies).
South Suburban Gas.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEWPORT HOSIERY COMPANY (TRADE DISPUTE).

Mr. Adamson: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the stoppage of work at the

premises of the Newport Hosiery Company, Portland Street, Newport, Monmouthshire, contractors to the War Office; whether his conciliation officers have interviewed the firm, and whether the firm has now agreed to meet the employés' trade union with a view to arranging satisfactory wages and conditions of employment?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): My officers are in touch with both parties to this dispute. There has been a meeting between the firm and the trade union, and a further meeting has been arranged.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

WEST HAM.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Labour the number of cases at the most recent date being assisted by the Unemployment Assistance Board in the County Borough of West Ham?

Mr. E. Brown: During the week ended 1st December, 1,168 payments of unemployment assistance allowances were made at Employment Exchanges situated in the County Borough of West Ham. This figure includes payments made in supplementation of insurance benefit and payments made under the Unemployment Assistance (Prevention and Relief of Distress) Regulations, 1939?

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed registered in the County Borough of West Ham for the three months ending December, 1939, and the nearest available date in November, 1939?

Mr. Brown: At 13th November, 1939, there were 9,420 unemployed persons, aged 14 and over, on the registers of Employment Exchanges situated in the County Borough of West Ham; the corresponding figures for 16th October and 11th September, 1939, were 10,412 and 9,942 respectively. Figures are not yet available in respect of any date in December.

LINLITHGOW AREA.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any special measures in view to deal with the abnormal increase in unemployment in the Linlithgow area, caused by the closing of the factory which has been carrying on production for the Government?

Mr. E. Brown: I am aware of the increased unemployment in this area, and the hon. Member may be assured that every effort will be made to find alternative employment for the workers at present unemployed.

BAKERY TRADE (WAGE RATES).

Mr. Mathers: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can now give the date when the minimum wage rates proposed by the Scottish Baking Trade Board will become operative; and when the measure to speed up the machinery of the trade board will be passed?

Mr. E. Brown: Assuming that the rates proposed are fixed by the trade board and confirmed, they will become operative about the middle of February next. With regard to the second part of the question, discussions with representatives of employers and workers are still proceeding.

Mr. Mathers: That is the point. Are there no means of making these rates and conditions operative more quickly?

Mr. Brown: None whatever.

Mr. Robert Gibson: Is the right hon. Gentleman doing everything to expedite this matter?

Mr. Brown: I certainly am.

INDIA (SITUATION).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any communication has recently been received from Mr. Gandhi; and whether there have been any recent developments towards a satisfactory solution of the difficulties arising from the conflict between His Majesty's Government and the demands of the Indian National Congress?

The Under-Secretary of State for India (Sir Hugh O'Neill): The Governor-General has received no recent communication from Mr. Gandhi, and I regret that the answer to the second part of the question is in the negative, though I am glad to note that further discussions between Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru and Mr. Jinnah, President of the All-India Muslim League, are likely to take place.

Mr. Sorensen: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to a letter sent by Mr. Gandhi to a London newspaper, the "News-Chronicle," and is he considering the contents of that letter?

Sir H. O'Neill: Oh, yes, I have seen that letter, and certainly we have taken note of its contents.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether his view of that letter is encouraging?

Sir H. O'Neill: I think we must exercise our own judgment.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE REGULATIONS.

DETENTION ORDERS.

Mr. James Hall: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to issue his first monthly report as to the action taken by him under Regulation 18 (B) of the Defence Regulations relating to detention orders?

Captain Ramsay: asked the Home Secretary when the monthly reports provided for in Defence Regulation 18 (B) will be laid before the House?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department {Sir John Anderson): The first monthly report was laid before the House yesterday.

Mr. J. Hall: asked the Home Secretary how long Mr. E. Loader has been detained under Regulation 18 (B) of the Defence Regulations; what are the grounds for the detention; whether the procedure laid down in paragraph (4) of the regulation was followed; how many weeks elapsed before the case was heard by the advisory committee; what conclusions were arrived at by the committee; and what action does he contemplate in the matter?

Sir J. Anderson: This man has been detained since 25th October on the ground that by reason of his hostile associations it was felt to be necessary for security purposes to exercise control over him. He was informed at the time of his arrest that it was open to him to make objections to the advisory committee. He came before the committee on 21st November. I understand that as a result


of certain statements he made to the committee further inquiries became necessary, and the committee have postponed their report till these inquiries are completed.

Mr. Hall: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as far as is known, the only thing that this man has done injudiciously is to spend a holiday in Germany this year, and in view of the fact that he is a man who is well known and of good character, will the right hon. Gentleman expedite the inquiry?

Sir J. Anderson: That is in the hands of the Advisory Committee, and I am sure that they will do everything possible to expedite their report, but I should not like to leave the House under the impression that all that could be said against the gentleman in question is that he spent a holiday in Germany.

Captain Ramsay: asked the Home Secretary how many British subjects arrested under Regulation 18b and still detained in prison have had the benefit neither of judge, jury, habeas corpus, legal advice, nor witnesses to help establish their innocence; and whether it is proposed to keep these men imprisoned over the Christmas Recess without recourse to any of these recognised judicial rights?

Sir J. Anderson: When Parliament passed the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act it recognised that in time of war responsibility must rest on the Home Secretary for the custody of persons whose detention is necessary in the interests of the public safety or the defence of the realm, and the need for safeguarding these interests will not lapse during the Christmas Recess. As regards the number of British subjects who are detained under the Regulation I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the report which was presented to the House yesterday in accordance with paragraph 6 of the Regulation.

Captain Ramsay: Is this not the first time for a very long time in English history that British-born subjects have been denied every facility for justice?

Sir J. Anderson: It is a long time since the security of the State was exposed to risks comparable to those of the present day.

Captain Ramsay: Why does my right hon. Friend always make innuendoes about risks and the people responsible? Will he not name them?

Captain Ramsay: asked the Home Secretary why, very shortly after the issue of the amended Defence Regulations, the persons detained under Regulation 18b were moved from London to Liverpool, thus placing them beyond the reach of their legal advisers?

Sir J. Anderson: Arrangements have been made for these persons to be detained in a special wing at Liverpool Prison in order that they may be kept apart from ordinary prisoners: but, as regards the last part of the question" I may add that they are not in fact sent away from London until after their cases have been disposed of by the Advisory Committee.

Captain Ramsay: Do the amended regulations give an opportunity for travelling to Liverpool? Many of the persons are very poor, very often working-class men, and cannot afford the fares of solicitous travelling up to Liverpool. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of providing warrants or give them suitable facilities for attending Liverpool prison?

Sir J. Anderson: I would certainly consider what could be done to meet any such difficulty as my hon. and gallant Friend has indicated, but I have had no such case brought to my notice.

Captain Ramsay: If I bring such a case to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman will he investigate the matter?

Sir J. Anderson: indicated assent.

Mr. Cocks: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that no inconvenience is imposed upon the hon. and gallant Member?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

SHOPS (HOURS OF CLOSING),

Mr. Robert Morgan: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that under Regulation 60A, Sub-section (2), Part D, issued under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, the Derby Town Council have sanctioned an order extending the local hours of closing to 8 p.m. on


the late day and 7 p.m. on all other days, on the explicit condition that only the occupier or the members of the family of the occupier shall, except in a hairdressing establishment, be employed after the normal closing hours of 7 p.m. and 6 p.m., respectively; and whether, to avoid misconceptions in war time, he will state whether the said regulation is approved by him for general adoption?

Sir J. Anderson: I have no power to approve or disapprove orders made by local authorities in the exercise of the discretion conferred on them by the regulation, but I am advised that a provision in such an order applying to shops in which only the occupier or members of his family are employed hours different from those applicable to other shops doing the same trade or business is not within the powers conferred on the authority by the Shops (Hours of Closing) Act, 1928, as amended by the Order in Council of 19th October last.

PERSONNEL (OXFORD AND BUCKINGHAMSHIRE).

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Home Secretary on what principle he has sanctioned expenditure on 295 air-raid wardens, ambulance drivers and auxiliary firemen for the city of Oxford, while the whole of the paid personnel for these services in the county of Buckingham, which includes important industrial centres in Slough, High Wycombe and Aylesbury only numbers 161?

Sir J. Anderson: As I mentioned in my reply to my hon. and gallant Friend's question on 7th December, the establishments of whole-time personnel have been under review, and according to the latest figures I have been able to obtain the number of paid air-raid wardens, ambulance drivers and auxiliary firemen in the city of Oxford is 226, whereas the corresponding figure for the county of Buckingham is 267.

Sir A. Knox: Is it not true that the industrial areas in Buckinghamshire require far more protection than anything in Oxford unless the right hon. Gentleman wants to protect Chatham House?

Sir J. Anderson: I have pointed out that the figures for Buckinghamshire are higher than those for Oxford.

Sir Herbert Williams: Is it not a fact that Oxford is where part of the Ministry of Information is situated, and, therefore, requires more protection?

DIRECTION SIGNS (ILLUMINATION).

Miss Rathbone: asked the Home Secretary whether he is satisfied that local authorities have, in fact, generally carried out the instructions given them in the Air-Raid Precautions Circular No. 220, issued on 1st September, 1939, in respect of the illumination during black-out hours of direction signs, especially those directing the public to air-raid shelters, first-aid stations, and fire stations; and whether he will consider issuing supplementary and more precise instructions as to the best method of securing the visibility of such direction signs without impairing the efficacy of black-out precautions?

Sir J. Anderson: Methods of illuminating location and direction signs for Civil Defence purposes have been the subject of close study and experiment, and there is now available a British standard specification for these signs, to which my Department drew the attention of local authorities in a circular dated 4th December. In the same circular local authorities were asked to reconsider, on the basis of the experience already gained of black-out conditions, the adequacy of their arrangements for indicating premises used in connection with Civil Defence, particularly air-raid shelters and first-aid posts. I am sending the hon. Lady a copy of this circular.

Miss Rathbone: In view of the fact that most of these signs are invisible during the whole of the black-out period, could the right hon. Gentleman do something more to speed up the work of these authorities in making signs visible; otherwise the benefit may become too late to be of use?

Sir J. Anderson: The purpose of the circular to which I have referred is to bring about improvement where improvement is considered necessary.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a good deal of confusion still exists because of the difficulty of local authorities discovering whether certain signs submitted to them meet with the approval of the Home Office? Could he not arrange for firms


which are producing these signs to submit them to the Home Office so that they would be able to take them to their customers with the assurance that they were satisfactory?

Sir J. Anderson: We do everything we can to help in the matter, and the standard specification which has been communicated to the local authorities ought to help very materially.

REQUISITIONED PRIVATE PREMISES.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the authorities in London have been in occupation of private premises for many weeks past for the purposes of Auxiliary Fire Service and other services concerned with Civil Defence, and that up to date great hardship has been inflicted on the owners because no payment of any kind has been made; and can he rectify this state of affairs?

Sir J. Anderson: Claim forms have been issued to local authorities for distribution to persons whose premises have been taken under compulsory powers. Every effort is being made to expedite matters, and interim payments on account have been authorised where settlement of the claim is likely to take time.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Does my right hon. Friend realise that a large number of individuals are dependent entirely upon the income from their premises, and that they are having an extremely difficult time in consequence of this state of affairs?

Sir J. Anderson: I realise the urgency of the matter.

AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS (COST).

Sir George Mitcheson: asked the Home Secretary the present total monthly cost of air-raid precautions; and what proportion of this will be paid out of local rates?

Sir J. Anderson: The figure for personnel is approximately £3,250,000, practically the whole of which will be borne by the Exchequer. Other items of expenditure, for exampe, on shelter or equipment, cannot be stated in terms of monthly cost and until the returns for which I have called for the period ending 31st December have been received and analysed I shall not be in a position to

give an aggregate figure or to say how much of the expenditure will fall on central and local funds respectively.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Will my right hon. Friend take some steps to see that apparently redundant A.R.P. services are combed out and a great deal of expenditure saved in consequence?

Sir J. Anderson: I have explained to the House on several occasions that a close review of all establishments in all parts of the country has been in progress for many weeks, and where reductions are found to be possible they are being made.

Mr. Thorne: When the right hon. Gentleman receives a report from the borough treasurer of a particular borough about the amount of money expended on this work, is there any delay in sending a cheque for the amount?

Sir J. Anderson: There is no delay, subject to the necessary examination of the returns that are submitted.

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Home Secretary whether he can make a statement regarding his negotiations with the local authorities or their associations concerning their financial liabilities in connection with Civil Defence, seeing it is now ascertained that in very many cases a rate of 1d. in the £is being exceeded?

Sir J. Anderson: I am awaiting replies to communications on this matter which I addressed to the representatives of local authorities in the autumn. I expect to receive these replies at an early date.

Mr. Simmonds: Is my right hon. Friend aware that suggestions have been made in certain localities that the Government is employing delaying tactics and is unwilling to face the issue, and in the light of that reply will he tell the House whether this is wholly untrue?

Sir J. Anderson: There is absolutely no foundation for any such suggestion, and I am sure that it would not be put forward in any responsible quarter.

STREET LIGHTING.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Home Secretary whether street lighting in Glasgow during the black-out is to be in operation by the middle of January; whether he will state the plans upon which this street lighting is to be


carried out; and whether they will be applicable to and adopted by other cities and towns in the country?

Sir J. Anderson: I am not aware that the Corporation of Glasgow has in mind any system of street lighting other than that on which my Department has been experimenting for some time past. I propose, in reply to a later question today, to state the results of the Department's experiments.

Sir T. Moore: Will my right hon. Friend consider extending some such methods to London?

Sir J. Anderson: That is dealt with in reply to the later question.

Sir Harold Webbe: asked the Home Secretary whether he is in a position to make any further statement on the subject of street lighting.

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir. I am glad to be able to announce that it has been found possible to devise a type of low intensity street lighting which satisfies the requirements of the Air Staff, and the Lighting (Restrictions) Order is being modified so as to permit the installation of this type of lighting in all areas except those on the East and South-east Coasts. I am arranging for a full statement on this subject to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir H. Webbe: In thanking my right hon. Friend for his answer may I inquire whether the method which it is proposed to permit is one that can be easily and quickly installed?

Sir J. Anderson: I have every hope that rapid progress will be made in the course of the next few weeks. It is purely a question of securing a sufficient supply of the necessary lamps and shades.

Mr. Riley: Will lighting authorities be notified of the existence of this system?

Sir J. Anderson: Certainly.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House information regarding the lighting, both internal and external, of passenger service?

Sir J. Anderson: The lighting of vehicles is a different matter. As the hon. Member knows, it has received a great deal of attention recently, and considerable improvements have been made, and I shall be glad to give the House all the information I have on the matter.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Will the new Order apply to the streets of London?

Following is the statement:

In the statement which I made on 26th October in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson), I examined the suggestion that ordinary street lighting, or something approaching it, might be restored if arrangements were made by which the lights could be turned off as soon as an air-raid warning was received. I explained the difficulties attaching to any system of switching off street lights on receipt of a warning; and I said at the end of my statement that, in view of these difficulties, my Department was exploring the possibility of devising a type of modified street lighting of so low an intensity that it could be left alight even while an air raid was in progress. The evolution of a type of lighting which would satisfy the conditions imposed by strategical requirements has presented technical problems of a novel and difficult character; but I am glad to be able to announce that, after weeks of unremitting experiment, a form of street lighting has now been devised which has passed the practical test of observation from the air. After a series of observation flights carried out by the Royal Air Force, the Air Staff are satisfied that this new type of lighting does not give assistance to aircraft flying at the altitudes at which hostile planes would be likely to fly in raids carried out at night over inland towns in this country.

The Government have, therefore, decided that the provisions of the Lighting (Restriction) Order shall be modified at once so as to permit the installation of this type of street lighting in all areas except those on the East and South-East coasts. The Government must for the moment reserve their decision about the use of this lighting in these coastal areas, where special defence considerations apply. I had hoped that a final test flight by the Royal Air Force would have been possible last night, but the weather


conditions in the test area prevented observation. The test will be made at the first opportunity, and the final decision as regards these coastal areas will then be announced immediately.

This lighting is necessarily of a very low intensity. It is not in any way comparable to ordinary street lighting, and gives much less light than the modified street lighting which was permitted during the last war. It has, however, been established by practical tests that it is of considerable value in facilitating movement in the streets, and it will certainly add materially to the comfort—and, I hope, also to the safety—of pedestrians moving about the streets after dark. At the same time, the light will be so diffused that it will not reduce the effectiveness of the permitted driving lights on vehicles, and will not affect the visibility of traffic lights and other illuminated aids to movement.

In order to ensure that street lighting shall not exceed the intensity approved by the Air Staff, it will be necessary to require that the authorities installing it shall use fittings complying with a prescribed specification. Arrangements have been made for the British Standards Institution to issue such a specification at once; and manufacturers will thus be enabled to produce in rapidly increasing numbers fittings which will give lighting of the approved standard both by gas and by electricity. The new lighting cannot be made generally available throughout the country at once; it must necessarily take some little time to manufacture the large number of fittings required; and the process of installing this lighting in all the towns where it is to be permitted may not be completed until February. Lighting authorities will, however, be able instal the new lights as fittings of the approved type become available; and it may be found possible for some of the streets in central London to be lighted in this way before Christmas.

CONTROLLER, CAMBERWELL.

Sir H. Williams: asked the Home Secretary whether the appointment of Councillor Manning, a member of the Camberwell Borough Council, to the post of controller of air-raid precautions in the borough of Camberwell at a salary of £ 750, tax free, has been approved by his Department; and whether a grant will be made in respect of the salary of this appointment?

Sir J. Anderson: Appointments to the office of controller are notified to my Department but are not subject to my approval. No salaries have been authorised for these appointments, and I have informed the Camberwell Borough Council that the salary which they are paying to the controller will not rank for Government grant.

Sir H. Williams: Then I understand the ratepayers of Camberwell have to pay for the privilege of having as one of their councillors a paid official of A.R.P.?

SHOPS (LIGHTING).

Mr. Mander: asked the Home Secretary whether he has any statement to make with reference to the present carrying out of the lighting regulations; and whether he is satisfied that all necessary precautions are being taken by shops in connection with the scheme recently authorised?

Sir J. Anderson: I am satisfied that, speaking generally, the public fully realise the importance of the black-out, and have shown a commendable readiness to co-operate in maintaining it. I have, however, found it necessary, as the hon. Member is aware, to call attention to a rather widespread misinterpretation of the relaxation recently sanctioned in connection with the lighting of shops.

AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS WORKERS.

Mr. Joel: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the reorganisation of air-raid precautions work in Dudley, part of which has been the approval of a system of summoning voluntary workers by radio relay, telephone and messenger, thus enabling them to have a reasonable time of relaxation and yet be ready to take up emergency duties without delay; and whether he will suggest to other local authorities the desirability of adopting some similar system?

Sir J. Anderson: I am aware of this scheme; but, before I can suggest to other local authorities the desirability of adopting a similar system, I must have some experience to go upon. The Dudley scheme has only recently been formulated.

Sir Irving Albery: Has the right hon. Gentleman put forward any scheme, especially in the London area, for encouraging the recruiting of voluntary helpers?

Sir J. Anderson: That point is raised in a subsequent question.

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Home Secretary whether part-time volunteers are still needed for the Civil Defence services?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir. I hope that local authorities will make the fullest use of offers of part-time service in their A.R.P. organisation.

Mr. Simmonds: Does my right hon. Friend think that he will obtain an increase in the number of volunteers without a special effort, and will he consider having recruiting drives in the New Year in order to reduce the number of paid workers and increase the number of volunteers?

Sir J. Anderson: I do not think it is a question of a general recruiting drive. The problem is essentially a local one, as circumstances differ from area to area, and I am sure that the method we are now following of reviewing establishments area by area is most likely to produce the result we all desire, which is a combination of paid and voluntary efforts which will have every regard to economy.

Sir Irving Albery: Is the right hon Gentleman aware that he cannot either get or usefully use part-time help in air-raid precautions unless there is a properly organised system of recruiting, and that that does not exist?

Sir J. Anderson: I addressed local authorities only ten days ago on the question of the most effective method of organising part-time volunteers in conjunction with a nucleus of whole-time volunteers.

Mr. Riley: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to discrimination by some local authorities as between coloured and white British subjects in appointments for home security services; and whether the Government approve or disapprove of such discrimination?

Sir J. Anderson: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question by the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) on nth October.

Mr. Riley: Is it the policy of the Government to disapprove of this kind of thing?

Sir J. Anderson: What was said in answer to the hon. Member for West Leyton was that any action making it difficult for British subjects of whatever part of the Empire to co-operate in the national effort was, in my view, greatly to be deprecated. That is a fair enough indication of the attitude of the Government.

Mr. Sorensen: Have any other instances of discrimination been brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman?

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir.

EQUIPMENT, LOCAL AUTHORITIES.

Mr. Emmott: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that local authorities are hampered in their work by deficiencies in equipment used for air-raid precautions; that, in particular, in the district of the Urban District Council of Coulsdon and Purley there is a considerable deficiency in the supply of steel helmets, civilian duty, and general service respirators; and when local authorities may expect to receive the remainder of the equipment that they require?

Sir J. Anderson: Issues of equipment to local authorities are continuing steadily in accordance with a carefully worked out scheme of priority related to estimated vulnerability, but it will be appreciated that the increasing needs of the Fighting Services for some items of equipment limit for the time being the supplies available for local authorities. The urban district to which my hon. Friend refers has received to date 95 per cent. of its authorised requirements of steel helmets, 75 per cent. of civilian duty respirators and 80 per cent. of service respirators.

AIR-RAID WARNINGS, SCOTLAND.

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Home Secretary why less than half the sirens were sounded during an air-raid warning in a certain town in Scotland, and none at all in immediately adjacent towns; whether the warning was received and transmitted through appropriate channels; and whether he can give an assurance that adequate steps have been taken to ensure that, in future, the official plans in such cases will, in the area referred to, be put into effective operation?

Sir J. Anderson: A number of sirens were sounded on this occasion owing to an error in the transmission of warning messages. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

Mr. Gibson: Can the right hon. Gentleman add anything in regard to the general test made on Tuesday of this week, and can he say anything in regard to the efficiency of the machinery in the particular town, the test having been made general over a very wide area in Scotland?

Sir J. Anderson: I understand that the tests which are made are made with a view to ascertaining that the instruments are in full working order. As regards the operation of the warning system generally, I have every reason to think is working satisfactorily.

Mr. Gibson: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether the time for which sirens are sounded is sufficiently long in order to get them up to their regular pitch?

Sir J. Anderson: That has not been brought to my notice, but I will go into the matter.

AIR-RAID SHELTERS, SCHOOLS (GRANT).

Mr. A. Jenkins: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what approaches have been made to the Government to raise the grant in connection with the provision of air-raid shelters for schools from 50 per cent. to 75 per cent., and with what result?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): Representations for an increased rate of grant on expenditure on air-raid precautions in schools have been received from the associations representing local authorities, and from 31 individual local education authorities. The 50 per cent. rate of grant is a minimum rate, and where the grant in respect of elementary education generally is at a higher percentage than 50, the grant in respect of air-raid precautions in elementary schools is paid at that higher percentage.

Mr. Jenkins: Is the hon. Gentleman conscious of the differentiation between A.R.P. work and the provision of shelters for children, and is it not prejudicial to

the provision of shelters at schools? Will he take steps to make representations to the Government in order to get grants raised to 75 per cent.?

Mr. Lindsay: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has informed representatives of the local authorities of the desirability of having a review of the expenditure in the New Year.

Mr. Jenkins: But is the hon. Gentleman not aware of the fact that certain local authorities are refraining from the provision of shelters for children because of the low grants?

Mr. Lindsay: I am aware of that.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that 50 per cent. in his estimate was unreasonable as compared with the 75 per cent. for the older people?

EVACUATED CHILDREN.

Mr. Jenkins: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether it is intended to provide additional temporary accommodation for evacuated schoolchildren in the reception areas so as to avoid a continuance of the schools operating on the two-shift system?

Mr. Lindsay: Yes, Sir, the Board aim at securing full-time education for evacuated schoolchildren and there is steady progress in making arrangements, including the hiring of temporary accommodation, for this purpose.

Mr. Jenkins: Have any schools now been provided for the purpose of avoiding the two-shift system?

Mr. Lindsay: Yes, Sir, there are a number of arrangements for the hiring of halls, dovetailing the evacuated children in the areas, and a considerable amount of rebilleting is going on in order to secure full-time education.

Miss Wilkinson: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the number of children who are known to be returning home for Christmas to the evacuation areas, any arrangements are being made by his Department for transport and supervision?

Mr. Elliot: It has been made very clear in a circular to the local authorities, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy, and also in the Press throughout


the country, that parents should not allow their children to return to the evacuated areas at Christmas. The arrangements which have been made are directed to discouraging any such movement.

Miss Wilkinson: While I am aware that the problem is to keep the children in the areas to which they are sent, the fact remains that in a large number of areas at least 50 per cent. of the children have indicated their desire to return home for the holidays. Does the Minister realise that unless proper arrangements are made it will lead to chaos, traffic jams, and probably accidents in having children trying to get home at 4 o'clock in the afternoon?

Mr. Elliot: If I were to arrange transport facilities for the transport of children to come home, that would undoubtedly be taken as a direct encouragement by the Government.

Miss Wilkinson: Does the Minister intend to leave these children without any supervision whatsoever?

EVACUATED TEACHERS.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Minister of Health whether he can now state the decison of the Government with regard to billeting allowances for evacuated teachers and the provision of travelling facilities for teachers evacuated to a considerable distance from their homes?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): As regards billeting allowances, I am not yet in a position to add anything to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on 7th December. As regards travelling facilities, I am now able to say that in connection with their Christmas leave, which, in the intersts of the children and the householders, is being taken on a rota, evacuated teachers may be allowed one return journey by rail without cost to themselves to the area from which they were evacuated or, provided the cost of that journey is not exceeded, to their home in any other town.

Mr. Harvey: While thanking the Minister for his reply, may I ask whether he will expedite the decision with regard to billeting allowances?

Mr. Elliot: I know that the matter is one of urgency.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that many of these teachers are very severely hit in having to keep up their homes in London as well as having to maintain their lodgings in the country?

EVACUATION STATISTICS.

Sir G. Mitcheson: asked the Minister of Health the number of persons it was contemplated would be evacuated under the Government scheme, the number that were evacuated and an estimate of the number that have returned at the latest date for which such an estimate was available?

Mr. Elliot: Plans were made in England and Wales for the evacuation of up to 3,000,000 persons: some 1,230,000 persons took advantage of the scheme. It is estimated that about 540,000 have returned to the evacuation areas.

EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE.

Sir Ernest Graham-Little: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the necessity of maintaining the most experienced available surgical skill in London, where the first and most critical effect of any air attack must be expected, he will revise the arrangements by which nearly all the most experienced surgeons are awaiting the expected casualties in centres remote from London?

Mr. Elliot: The present arrangements, which were made in general agreement with the profession, provide for the bulk of the surgical treatment required by London air-raid casualties being given by the more experienced surgeons at hospitals on the periphery of, but not necessarily remote from, London, and for the rapid transfer of the patients to these hospitals. These arrangements are designed not only to secure the most efficient treatment of the patients but also to avoid undue risk to highly skilled and irreplaceable personnel, and I think it undesirable to revise them further for the present.

Sir E. Graham-Little: Is my right hon. Friend informed of the statement made in a recent lecture at the Royal Society of Medicine, given by a celebrated Spanish surgeon, who had wide experience of air casualties in Spain, and who emphasised the primary importance of immediate surgical attention of the highest quality


to such cases; and does he not think that, in view of this experience, a reorientation of the medical arrangements in this respect is urgent?

Mr. Elliot: I am well aware of the statement, and, in fact, our plans are well advanced for dealing with the matter. But any who have had experience know that a hospital in the centre of a bombarded town is not always the most auspicious place to which to bring casualties.

Sir E. Graham-Little: asked the Minister of Health the number of members of the honorary staffs of the voluntary hospitals who have accepted the new conditions outlined in his answer of 23rd November, and the number who have actually returned to take up their duties as regards conduct of out-patient and other specialist departments and systematic education of medical students in the voluntary hospitals; and whether the offer of transfer to this new scheme from any form of agreement previously accepted in individual cases covers those members of hospital staffs who were receiving the second grade of salaries for whole-time service?

Mr. Elliot: To date, 337 specialists and consultants have accepted the offer to which the hon. Member refers. I cannot say how many of these have returned to their normal duties, as this is a matter with which I am not officially concerned. It was not suggested by the professional committee consulted that the offer of transfer should extend to members of the Emergency Medical Service receiving the second grade of salaries for whole-time service.

Sir E. Graham-Little: May I remind my right hon. Friend that in his answer on 23rd November he, as I thought, undertook to facilitate the transfer to the new scheme that he was offering of all voluntary staffs who had accepted full-time engagements, irrespective of any agreements which they had previously accepted; and will he not regard this category of honorary officers as being covered by his undertaking?

Mr. Elliot: I will again examine the answer I gave. I do not evade carrying out any undertaking that I have given.

BILLETING, HEREFORD.

Mr. Thomas: asked the Minister of Health whether he is now able to assist the five other Government Departments concerned with billeting in the city of Hereford and its neighbourhood by agreeing to the ruling of the Home Office that Hereford is a vulnerable area; and whether he will, therefore, take steps to have all children who have been evacuated to Hereford for safety re-evacuated to an area which has been scheduled as safe?

Mr. Elliot: The primary object of the Government evacuation scheme is to secure dispersal, and it has been necessary to utilise as receiving areas some districts, including Hereford, which are specified areas for the purpose of the Civil Defence Act, 1939, on the view that they offer a better chance of safety than do the areas from which children have been evacuated. Close contact is being maintained with the other Government Departments concerned, and the question of transferring evacuated children now accommodated in Hereford will be considered in connection with billeting requirements for other Government purposes.

SILICOSIS SCHEME.

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Home Secretary the reasons for confining the Order applying the silicosis scheme to the slate-quarrying and mining industry to operations underground; is he aware that this restricted application of the scheme will prevent many workers in the industry, disabled by silicosis, from claiming compensation; and whether, having regard to this fact, he will reconsider the matter and make an Order bringing within its scope all operations in the industry?

Sir J. Anderson: The scheme which I have made extends the Various Industries Silicosis Scheme so as to cover any operation underground in slate mines, but I am advised that at present the available evidence is not such as to justify any further extension.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are cases of men who are disabled by silicosis who will be completely outside the Order, and in view of the experience in the mining industry, where we have had Order after Order,


will he not reconsider this matter? Further, will men who are disabled by silicosis and who are unemployed because of that fact at the time when the Order comes into force be covered by the Order?

Sir J. Anderson: With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, the matter is really one of evidence, and I have indicated to the Quarrymen's Union that I am perfectly prepared to consider any further evidence that may be brought forward tending to show that there is a definite risk of silicosis in the case of persons employed above ground. On that understanding, the union entirely agreed that it was desirable that the Order already made should come into force on 1st December. With regard to the second part of the question, I would prefer, if I may, not to give a definite answer at the moment, because I am not quite certain of the facts, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Griffiths: If the union concerned does submit to the right hon. Gentleman evidence that there are cases outside this Order, will he give an undertaking to reconsider the Order?

Sir J. Anderson: Certainly, I will reconsider the whole matter.

Mr. David Grenfell: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the history of the silicosis schemes in the coal mining industry, and, in the light of the long years of delay in giving recognition to the claims of silicosis in the coal mining industry, will he not try to avoid similar difficulty in the slate industry?

Sir J. Anderson: I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that the Home Office have taken a very sympathetic attitude towards this question of silicosis, and I will personally do anything that I can to expedite the matter.

Mr. R. Gibson: Does this scheme cover sandstone quarrying, which is a dangerous industry?

Sir J. Anderson: This deals with slate quarries.

REGIONAL COMMISSIONERS.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Home Secretary whether the 13 regional commissioners, salary £2,500 a year, and the

12 deputy regional commissioners, salary £1,000 a year, have commenced work, and what their present duties are?

Sir J. Anderson: Regional commissioners and deputy regional commissioners were instructed on 25th August last to take up duty at their headquarters, and they have since been employed on their duties. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) on Tuesday last.

Sir A. Knox: As these gentlemen have not begun their proper duties yet, might they not be content with half pay until their duties commence?

Sir J. Anderson: The great majority of them are receiving no pay at all, at their own request.

PRESS AND CENSORSHIP BUREAU.

Mr. Mander: asked the Home Secretary whether he is now able to state the nature of the recent changes made in the organisation of the Press and Censorship Department under Sir Walter Monckton; and what alterations in staff have been effected?

Sir J. Anderson: No substantial changes in the organisation and staffing of the Press and Censorship Bureau have so far been made. I am still in consultation with Sir Walter Monckton on certain proposals put forward in the report to which I referred in my reply to the hon. Member on 7th December.

COMMUNIST PARTY (SEIZED LETTERS).

Sir A. Knox: asked the Home Secretary whether the letter which was written by a certain M. Kuusinen when a member of the Third International to the Communist party of Great Britain precisely detailing the work which must be done by that party to further the world revolution, and which was seized in a raid by the police in King Street, has been preserved; and whether he will publish the contents?

Sir J. Anderson: I am not sure which particular letter my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind, but some letters from M. Kuuisnen to the Communist party of Great Britain which were among the documents seized by the police at the Communist party offices in October, 1925, were included in the selection of documents printed and placed on sale in June, 1926, as Command Paper 2682, under the title "Communist Papers." Copies of this publication are still procurable from the Stationery Office.

Sir A. Knox: Is this the individual who has been nominated to the head of the Government of Finland by Soviet Russia?

Sir J. Anderson: As far as I know, yes.

Mr. T. Smith: If these letters are preserved as a matter of historical interest, is it not because they were very helpful to the Conservative party at the time?

INDIAN SEAMEN (SENTENCES).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Home Secretary the total number of Indian seamen charged with offences in connection with their refusal to resume duties; and how many are still in custody or are being charged?

Sir J. Anderson: The number of Indian seamen sentenced to imprisonment since 1st November last for refusal to obey orders, is 310. Of these 158 are still in custody.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any information of the number who have been fined, and is he aware of the extraordinary disparity between the punishments inflicted on various groups, some being fined 5s. and others being given two months imprisonment? Will he deal with the whole situation with a view to making the punishment more uniform?

Sir J. Anderson: I do not think it is for me to constitute myself a sort of court of revision in these matters, but I am always prepared to consider any particular case that may be brought to my notice.

Mr. Shinwell: Is not the sole difficulty that these men want higher wages? Why not give them higher wages and settle this question?

ALIENS

Miss Rathbone: asked the Home Secretary whether he has now considered the advisability of granting some right of appeal, similar to that enjoyed by interned aliens, to those aliens who have not been thought deserving of internment by the alien tribunals but have been placed in Category B and so subjected to the continuance of restrictions which impede their opportunities of becoming self-supporting and leave them under the stigma of being described as enemy aliens?

Sir J. Anderson: I am at present considering how the request that has been made for a further systematic review of these cases can best be met, but the matter is not free from difficulty and I regret that I am not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject.

Miss Rathbone: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are a number of refugees subject to these restrictions whose labour is urgently needed in setting up factories which promise to employ a substantial number of British workers, and will he consider examples of such cases with a view to expediting the freeing of these refugees from restrictions?

Sir J. Anderson: I am always prepared to consider representations made in regard to particular cases, but my answer dealt with the systematic review of these cases.

Mr. Lipson: Have the Home Office the information on which decisions were arrived at to place persons in category B?

Sir J. Anderson: Not in every case pending the report of the decisions of the tribunal.

PEDESTRIAN CROSSING PLACES.

Mr. Joel: asked the Home Secretary whether he can arrange for a test case to be carried to the highest legal tribunal in the country to ascertain what, under the law, is the exact position of pedestrians and motorists, respectively, at marked street-crossings?

Sir J. Anderson: It is not within my power to give effect to my hon. Friend's suggestion, and I would point out that no decision could do more than elucidate certain aspects of the reciprocal rights


and liabilities of pedestrians and other road users at pedestrian crossing places, arising out of the facts of the particular case before the court.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (URGENT COMMUNICATIONS).

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Prime Minister whether he will instruct all Departments to treat letters received from hon. Members as communications of urgency, and, in particular, those personal letters on such subjects as rates, conditions, etc., of dependants of men serving in the Forces, and requests for the release or transfer of men from units?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I am confident that every effort is made to deal as expeditiously as possible with all correspondence on the matters to which the hon. Member refers. It must, however, be borne in mind that Departments are bearing a very heavy burden of work arising out of the prosecution of the war.

Mr. Smith: While I do not expect the Prime Minister to give his personal attention to this, will he give instructions to someone to speed-up the machinery which deals with the release or transfer of technical men in the Armed Forces?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

LAND (GOVERNMENT ACQUISITION).

Colonel Baldwin-Webb: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will introduce legislation to ensure that in cases where the State, through any of its public services, acquires land for any purpose, war or civil, after an agreement with the landlord, the farmer and smallholder on the land thus acquired by the State shall have redress for disturbance, loss of profit, loss by forced sale of stock, improvements, etc.?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): I have been asked to reply. The Government have under consideration the introduction of legislation regarding the permanent acquisition of land for Defence purposes. In so far, however, as my hon. and gallant Friend may be

referring to the taking of possession of land for temporary user by the State under emergency powers, the compensation will fall to be dealt with under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, of the working of which the Government must have experience before they can consider whether or not further legislation of the kind suggested is required.

Colonel Baldwin-Webb: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this Act operates hardly, giving no real compensation to those small farmers who are dispossessed, and that even though farmers may be paid temporarily their whole savings, all that they have worked for for years, will be lost and will never be made good under the present legislation?

Sir W. Womersley: I will draw the attention of my right hon. and gallant Friend to what the hon. Member has said.

Sir J. Lamb: Is the Minister aware that the attention of farmers has already been drawn to the matter by the fact that the farmer is denied the ordinary compensation which in the past the State has compelled landlords to give to their tenants who have been dispossessed?

Colonel Baldwin-Webb: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, taking each county separately in England, Wales and Scotland, he will state the amount in acreage of agricultural and non-agricultural land, respectively, which has been requisitioned by any Government Department for the purposes of any of the fighting Forces?

Sir W. Womersley: My right hon. Friend regrets that he has not the information asked for, and he does not feel that he can at the present time ask the Departments concerned to incur the expenditure of time and labour necessary to furnish the particulars required.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Why is it that the most productive agricultural land is always chosen for requisitioning by the Departments? Will my hon. Friend take this up with his right hon. and gallant Friend?

Sir W. Womersley: There now is liaison between these activities. I will call the special attention of my right hon. and gallant Friend to this matter.

POTATO MARKETING BOARD (GIRLS' TOUR).

Mr. R. Morgan: asked the Miŉister of Agriiulture what was the cost of the tour of the eight girls which the Potato Board sent on tour last summer; and whether the board regards the experiment as having been a success and that the outlay was justified?

Sir W. Womersley: My right hon. and gallant Friend is informed by the Potato Marketing Board that the cost of the tour referred to was £1,000. The answers to the other parts of the question are in the affirmative.

BLACKDALE FARM, DARTFORD.

Mrs. Adamson: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that 178 acres of agricultural land, known as Blackdale Farm, in the Dartford rural area, has been lying vacant since early October and that the foreman and men previously employed are still available for its cultivation; and whether he will take steps, in consultation with the Kent War Agricultural Committee, to ensure that this well-conditioned land will be cultivated to produce such crops as are essential for food production?

Sir W. Womersley: I understand that the Kent War Agricultural Executive Committee have had this farm under consideration and that the committee are on the point of taking suitable action to ensure that the land shall be properly cultivated.

GRASSLAND PLOUGHING (PATTINGHAM, STAFFORDSHIRE).

Mr. Adamson: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that an order made by the Staffordshire War Agricultural Committee enforces the ploughing-up of grassland on a farm holding at Pattingham, Staffordshire, to the extent of over 50 per cent. of available grassland, although the present tenant is on notice to vacate and give up possession of this land on 25th March next; that, while land equal in size has been offered by the owner, Major R. S. Wilson, on the same holding, the committee insist upon the terms entered into with the present tenant; and what steps he is taking, as the enforcement of such an order is unlikely to maintain the good will necessary to encourage more extensive cultivation of land?

Sir W. Womersley: This case was brought to the notice of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries by the hon. Member in a letter which he addressed to him on 9th November, and I would remind him that in the reply which my right hon. Friend sent to him on 29th November he stated that these matters could in his opinion be best dealt with by the local War Agricultural Executive Committees who are able to investigate and consider all the relevant facts. My right hon. Friend is satisfied as a result of inquiries that the Staffordshire Committee have given full consideration to the representations that Major Wilson has made to them and he does not feel justified in taking any further action in the matter.

Mr. Adamson: Would the hon. Gentleman convey to his right hon. and gallant Friend that, in regard to the exercise of these powers by the agricultural committees, there should be some supervision and an appeal against their decision?

Sir W. Womersley: I will certainly draw the attention of my right hon. and gallant Friend to that matter.

WOMEN'S LAND ARMY.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that advertisements are appearing in the provincial Press to the effect that Land Army girls are available for employment; whether these advertisements are being paid for from State funds; and whether it is a standing instruction that members of the Women's Land Army are not to compete with local available labour?

Sir W. Womersley: Women's Land Army county committees have been instructed to take all practicable steps to make known in their county the existence of the Women's Land Army organisation, and the availability of trained Women's Land Army workers; in some cases the issue of advertisement notices in the Press has been thought to be a useful way of bringing this to the notice of farmers, and where this has been done the cost involved, which is small, falls to be paid for out of public funds, as part of the administration of the Women's Land Army. All Women's Land Army county committees have been instructed to cooperate closely with their Employment Exchanges in placing women volunteers so as to ensure that the vacancies filled


by them are such as cannot be filled from normal sources.

Mr. Williams: Why, since the county executives are supposed to be in close contact with the various Employment Exchanges, is it found necessary to advertise the fact that certain land workers are available; and is it not the duty of the Employment Exchange manager to meet all the calls that are made by farmers in the ordinary way?

Sir W. Womersley: It is certainly the duty of the managers of the Employment Exchanges, but I do not see any reason why we should not help them in their work by advertising. In rural areas they are not in such close touch as in the towns.

Mr. Williams: Is it not the case that a farmer who requires agricultural labour can make application to the exchange or the county agricultural executive, and that there is no necessity for advertising?

Sir W. Womersley: There would still be an advantage in advertising.

Mr. Sorensen: How many of these trained land army units are available?

Sir W. Womersley: That is another question.

UNCULTIVATED LAND.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can give an estimate of the acreage of land not being cultivated but which is capable of cultivation; and whether he proposes to take effective measures so that all available land should be used for the production of foodstuffs?

Sir W. Womersley: I am not in a position to give a precise estimate of the area of land which is not being cultivated but is capable of cultivation. County war agricultural committees have, however, been set up in every county and given wide powers for the express purpose of ensuring the maximum possible production of foodstuffs from the land. Powers have also been given to urban local authorities to take possession of uncultivated land in or adjacent to their areas for the purpose of providing war-time allotments.

Mr. Shinwell: What is the position with regard to the authorities to whom the hon. Genteman referred? Why do they take no action, and what does the Ministry of Agriculture do in such cases?

Sir W. Womersley: It takes the action of pressing people to do it.

Mr. Shinwell: How can you put pressure on these county committees to take action? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that all over the country there is idle land capable of cultivation and not being used?

Sir W. Womersley: I am aware that it will not be long before that idle land is used.

SEED OATS.

Mr. Jackson: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the shortage in the country of seed oats, and whether he is considering a scheme to control them?

Mr. John Morgan: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he expects a large increase in the 1940 spring oat acreage; and what provision is he making for additional supplies of high-grade seed oats?

Sir W. Womersley: A considerable increase in the acreage under oats is anticipated, and my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Agriculture is in close consultation with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and with the seed trade with a view to ensuring that the necessary supplies of seed will be available. I am aware that difficulty is being experienced in certain parts of the country at the present time in obtaining supplies of seed oats, but I am advised that this is largely due to the fact that, for various reasons, threshing has been delayed.

Mr. W. Roberts: Does there exist at the present time a maximum selling price for home-grown oats either for seed or feeding purposes?

Sir W. Womersley: I should want notice of that question.

PIGS.

Sir Ralph Glyn: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he has taken to organise the establishment of pig clubs throughout the country; whether he is


aware that the present shortage of feeding-stuffs has produced a situation of extreme gravity; that pig producers are faced with the alternative of either slaghtering two-thirds of their stock or obtaining from other sources suitable food; and whether he will, in collaboration with the Minister of Food, the Minister of Supply, and the Minister of Health, circulate to all local authorities a request that immediate steps be taken to collect swill and other waste products, that this be treated in such a way as to provide feed for breeding sows and weaner pigs, and thus, by eliminating waste, enable pig producers not to reduce but to increase their herds?

Sir W. Womersley: My right hon. Friend, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries is sending the hon. Member a copy of a Press notice issued by his Department on 24th November from which he will see that an independent body, known as the Small Pig Keepers' Council, was set up on that date for the purpose of fostering the pig club movement throughout the country. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply has already circularised local authorities urging them "to take immediate steps to establish an effective system for the collection of waste," and as indicated in his reply to the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) on 23rd November, my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Agriculture will take all possible steps to supplement that appeal so far as it concerns waste food suitable for pig and poultry breeding.

Mr. Shinwell: Where is the Minister this morning?

Sir Percy Harris: Has anything been done by way of the collection of waste? We seem to have the greatest difficulty in the collection of waste.

Mr. Macquisten: Have it broadcast to households to collect their spare food. There is enough spare food in this country to feed all the pigs that we need.

Sir R. Glyn: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the importance of encouraging pig clubs throughout the country; and whether he will give local authorities instructions to waive restrictions imposed by recent legislation that prevent cottagers keeping a pig within so many yards of a dwelling-house?

Mr. Elliot: I am aware of the importance in present circumstances of facilitating the keeping of pigs in the interests of increased food production, and I have recently addressed to local authorities a circular, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy, concerning the keeping of pigs by tenants of their housing estates. I do not know exactly to what recent legislation my hon. Friend refers, but I believe that by-laws concerning pig-keeping seldom impose any condition as to the distance from a dwelling-house within which pigs may be kept, provided they are kept in a clean and wholesome condition.

Sir R. Glyn: Will my right hon. Friend, if I send him instances of where this condition exists, do his best to remove it?

Mr. Elliot: I will certainly examine them, but I think we are agreed that pigs should be kept in clean and wholesome places.

Mr. De la Bère: Will my right hon. Friend take some action in the matter?

MILK-IN-SCHOOLS SCHEME.

Dr. Haden Guest: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the number of education authorities who make use of the milk-in-schools scheme; the number of other authorities who supply milk at reduced rates in connection with centres for maternity and child welfare; and the total quantity of milk so supplied for both purposes for the latest convenient period?

Mr. Lindsay: Before the war the milk-in-schools scheme was in operation in some or all of the schools in the areas of 312 of the 315 local education authorities in England and Wales. In some areas where the schools have been closed since the outbreak of war the operation of the scheme has been temporarily suspended, but in all these cases the local education authorities are being urged to introduce emergency arrangements as soon as possible. The second part of the hon. Member's question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. The approximate quantity of milk supplied under the milk-in-schools scheme in October last was 1,500,000 gallons.

Dr. Guest: Would it be correct to say that at the present time the milk-in-


schools scheme is in operation in only 60 educational areas out of 315?

Mr. Lindsay: I should like to have notice of the exact figure. I can say that over 60 per cent. of the figure which we had before the war is now being taken by the children at school. The hon. Gentleman will, of course, realise that that figure was in October.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (MEETINGS).

Sir H. Williams: asked the Minister of Health whether, with a view to the proper control of local government, he will request local authorities to resume regular meetings of the whole council in all those cases where full authority has been delegated to an emergency committee?

Mr. Elliot: Emergency arrangements made on the outbreak of war will doubtless be kept under review by local authorities, in the light of conditions obtaining, but the matter is primarily one for the authorities themselves to determine and I do not think I can with advantage adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Sir H. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in various parts of the country there is great indignation at the conduct of little Hitlers and Stalins who have installed themselves on local authorities and who deprive their colleagues of the opportunities of exercising those duties which they are capable of performing?

Mr. Elliot: The proper remedy for that rests with the people themselves to make their views known to their local representatives.

Mr. Charles Williams: May I ask my right hon. Friend why, if the House of Commons sits regularly, the local authorities do not, especially the more reactionary ones like the London County Council?

Mr. Elliot: No doubt, the example of the House of Commons will, in this as in other matters, be an example to the rest of the country.

Mr. Thorne: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the London County Council are now restored to the ordinary meetings?

CANCER (WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE).

Mr. Jenkins: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the meeting of the Cardiff Public Health Committee at which a report was made to the effect that the mortality rate from cancer is rapidly increasing in Wales and Monmouthshire, that the Welsh Board of Health and the regional commissioner had both refused to take any action for the establishment of a radio-therapeutic institute for the treatment of cancer; and does he propose to take any steps to investigate the accuracy of this report?

Mr. Elliot: I have seen Press reports of the meeting referred to. The Welsh Board of Health called a meeting of the local authorities concerned last year to discuss the provision of a radio-therapeutic institute for South Wales, and they have not in any way discouraged those authorities from establishing such an institute. It is primarily for the authorities themselves to proceed with proposals for this purpose. With regard to the last part of the question, I am, of course, aware that the statistics of deaths from cancer, both in England and in Wales, have shown a continuous increase during recent years, and steps have been taken, even during the present war, to forward plans for dealing with this disease under the recent Cancer Act.

Mr. Jenkins: In view of the statements made, will the Minister take steps to see that this conference is convened at an early date?

Mr. Elliot: I will take steps to see that measures to deal with the cancer problem are forwarded in every possible way.

BREAD.

Sir Joseph Leech: asked the Minister of Health whether he will require that bread supplied in institutions controlled by public authorities shall be made of flour containing the wheat germ with the B series of vitamins, so that growing children in particular may not suffer from malnutrition owing to being given bread deprived of its full food value; and whether he will confer with the service authorities with a view to providing the forces of the Crown with bread containing the wheat germ?

Mr. Elliot: I have not the power to give my general direction such as my hon. Friend has in mind. As to the second part of the question, the Armed Forces are under the medical charge of highly skilled personnel who have devoted much attention to questions of dietetics, and I do not think I could usefully adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. De la Bère: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman tackle the combines concerned, on what has been going on? It is an absolute scandal.

VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that a referee has recently decided that a nurse, a British subject whose home is in Great Britain, serving with a British unit of His Majesty's Forces in India for some years, is not entitled on her return to this country to become a voluntary contributor under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions (Voluntary Contributors) Act, 1937, because she had not been resident in Great Britain for a period of not less than 10 years immediately before her notice to join tie scheme; and will he amend the law in order to avoid excluding certain members of His Majesty's Forces now serving overseas from this scheme when they return home at the close of the war?

Mr. Elliot: I am aware of the decision to which the hon. Member refers. It is only in exceptional cases that service abroad as a member of His Majesty's Forces results in disqualification for voluntary pensions insurance, but I will certainly consider the hon. Member's suggestion for dealing with such cases.

Mr. Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it grossly unfair that a nurse serving with a British unit in India is penalised in this way, and will he be good enough to reopen the case?

Mr. Elliot: I cannot have made myself clear to the hon. Member. I said I would certainly consider his suggestion.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to:

Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.

Postponement of Enactments (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, without Amendment.

ADJOURNMENT (CHRISTMAS).

THE WAR.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. James Stuart.]

1.0 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): A fortnight ago, on the day when the first attack was launched on Finland by Soviet forces, I gave the House some account of the circumstances which had led up to this attack. Since then the Finns have been defending their country with the courage and determination which were to be expected of that gallant people, and it is clear that the Finnish Army has proved itself by far the better fighting force in everything but numbers. It is too soon to attempt any forecast of the outcome of this unequal struggle, but its political consequences have already been far-reaching. By their act of aggression the Soviet Government have outraged the conscience of the whole world. The German Government, however, have publicly ranged themselves on the side of the aggressor, whom they have even attempted to assist by an insolent and violent campaign against the other Scandinavian countries for their moral support of the Finnish cause.
As the House will be aware, it was generally agreed during the deliberations at Geneva in September of last year that each member of the League should decide for itself, in the light of its own position and conscience, on the nature of the sanctions which it could apply under Article 16 of the Covenant against an aggressor State. His Majesty's Government, for their part, have always held the view that no member State ought to remain indifferent to a clear case of aggression of the sort with which we are now faced. At the outset of the attack on Finland, and before the question had been raised at Geneva, they decided to permit the release and immediate delivery to Finland by the manufacturers concerned of a number of fighter aircraft of which the Finnish Government stood in urgent need; and they intend similarly to release other material which will be of assistance to the Finnish Government. Generous help for Finland has been forthcoming from several other countries, including the United States. It is known that several European countries have recently

supplied war material to Finland, and would have supplied more but for the fact that the German Government made difficulties in regard to transit.
As a result of Finland's appeal to the League of Nations, the dispute is now under consideration at Geneva, and the House will not expect me to speak at length on this aspect of the question while the deliberations of the Council and Assembly are still proceeding. The attitude of His Majesty's Government has already been made abundantly clear; while strongly condemning the Soviet aggression, they considered that every effort should be made to utilise the League machinery for its primary purpose, namely, the peaceful settlement of the dispute, and, if that should prove impossible, for affording practical assistance to the victim of aggression.
The Council of the League of Nations was summoned to meet on 9th December to consider the appeal by the Finnish Government, under Articles 11 and 15 of the Covenant, against the attack upon Finland by the armed forces of the Soviet Union. The Finnish representative, in accordance with his rights under Article 15, paragraph 9, of the Covenant, requested the Council to refer the dispute between his Government and the Soviet Union to the Assembly without delay. The Council acceded to this request.
The Assembly of the League of Nations had been summoned to meet on 11th December. The Norwegian delegate was elected President and, as soon as the necessary preliminaries had been completed, a special committee was appointed to examine the Finnish appeal. After the Assembly had heard a most moving statement by the Finnish delegate, this committee held its first meeting, and decided to send an urgent appeal to the Soviet Government and the Finnish Government to cease hostilities and open immediate negotiations under the mediation of the committee with a view to restoring peace. The Soviet Government were informed that Finland, which was present at the meeting, accepted this appeal.
The Soviet Government replied on 12th December that they were unable to accept the invitation to take part in the discussion of the Finnish question at Geneva for reasons which they had already stated in a communication of 4th December. The


reasons then given were inter alia that the Soviet Union was not at war with Finland and did not threaten the Finnish nation with war; that the Soviet Union maintained peaceful relations with the Democratic Republic of Finland, whose Government on 2nd December had signed with the Soviet Union a pact of assistance and friendship; and that the persons on whose behalf the Finnish delegate, M. Holsti, had approached the League could not be regarded as mandatories of the Finnish people. On 13th December the Assembly held a further meeting to hear a statement by the Argentine delegate to the effect that if in the circumstances the Soviet Union remained a member of the League of Nations, the Argentine Government would be obliged to withdraw from it. In the meantime, the special committee of the Assembly had been preparing a report setting out the facts and circumstances of the case. This committee has now made a report and presented a draft resolution to the Assembly, which is at this moment considering it.
It would clearly be inappropriate to enlarge on the terms of a resolution which has not yet been adopted, but in general the draft expresses strong condemnation of the action of the Soviet Union and proposes the organisation of assistance to Finland with, if possible, the co-operation of States which are not members of the League. The second part of the resolution, after describing the refusal of the U.S.S.R. to attend the League and to observe one of its most essential covenants, goes on to say that the U.S.S.R. has thereby placed itself outside the Covenant and invites the Council to pronounce upon the question of expulsion. It will be appreciated that the League has handled the appeal of Finland with the utmost speed and despatch.
I should like, further, to say a few words about the bearing of the Finnish conflict upon our war aims. The opportunity provided by this conflict has been eagerly seized upon by the German propaganda machine, and by many people acting consciously or unconsciously in its service, to deflect attention from the primary objective of the Allied war effort, which is the defeat of Nazi Germany. We must never lose sight of

that objective. We must never forget that it was German aggression which paved the way for the Soviet attack on Poland and Finland, and that Germany, alone among the nations, is even now abetting by word and deed the Russian aggressor. We must all give what help and support we can spare to the latest victim of these destructive forces; but meanwhile it is only by concentrating on our task of resistance to German aggression, and thus attacking the evil at its root, that we can hope to save the nations of Europe from the fate which must otherwise overtake them.
Hon. Members are already familiar with the chief events which have taken place in the various theatres of war.
We all read with pleasure the accounts of the lengthy visit to the front line with which His Majesty the King honoured his troops. All ranks were stimulated by his presence among them and gave to the King the warmest of welcomes. His Majesty also visited certain parts of the French line.
British troops have now taken their place in a sector of the Maginot Line, side by side with our French Allies. Certain British units are now facing the enemy in the out-post line of this sector, whence patrols maintain touch with the enemy. The British Commander in this sector is under the orders of a senior French Formation Commander, but has himself certain French troops under his command, thus giving fresh proof of the mutual confidence which the armies of the Allied Powers have in each other.
At sea, the chief event has been the action which has taken place in South American waters. There is little that I can add at present to the reports which have already appeared. Shortly after 6 o'clock yesterday morning, Commodore Harwood, in the 6-inch gun cruiser "Ajax," reported that he was in contact with a German pocket-battleship. Thereupon, in company with the 8-inch gun cruiser "Exeter" and the 6-inch gun "Achilles," he attacked the enemy, who made off in the direction of Montevideo. During the action which was of a severe character, His Majesty's Ship "Exeter" received damage which reduced her speed, and forced her to drop out of the fight. The two 6-inch gun cruisers, however, continued the pursuit, and at about midnight the German ship,


which turned out to be the "Admiral Graf Spee" carrying six 11-inch guns, took refuge within territorial waters and is now anchored off Montevideo.
A statement issued through the German Minister to Uruguay admitted that the "Admiral Graf Spee" has 36 dead and 60 wounded, and alleges that these losses were due to the use by the British cruisers of mustard gas. This characteristic statement is, of course, entirely without foundation. No gas shells or gas grenades have been made for or used by any ships of His Majesty's Navy.
Although full details are not yet available, I think it is already apparent that a very gallant action has been fought by three comparatively small British ships against a much more heavily armed adversary, the result of which may well be to free the South Atlantic from the depredations of this raider.
Hon. Members will also have welcomed the news that the same British submarine which reported that she had sighted the "Bremen" has sunk a U-boat and torpedoed an enemy cruiser.
Air operations have been hampered by bad weather and poor visibility, but hon. Members will have read with interest and pride of the engagement between our fighters and seven Heinkels over the coast of Scotland on Thursday last and of the continuous patrols which were carried out by our bomber aircraft on the night of 12th December over enemy bases in the Heligoland Bight, repeated again last night. The House will also have welcomed the full and encouraging statement which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air made on Tuesday last.
Since my last statement to the House was made, the discussions with visiting Ministers from the Dominions and the representatives of India have been completed. There has been a full and frank exchange of views, which have proved to be of the highest value both on the general strategical and diplomatic aspects of the war and also on particular problems affecting individual Members of the British Commonwealth.
We have had, indeed, in recent weeks many practical demonstrations of the loyal co-operation of the Empire. Australia and New Zealand have announced their intention to despatch at an early date land forces trained in those Dominions for

service overseas, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air gave particulars in his speech on Tuesday of the help our air defence is receiving from Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.
Detailed plans have now been drawn up to carry out the Empire Air Training scheme which was so readily accepted in principle by the Governments concerned when it was first launched.
I would also remind the House of the valuable contribution which Newfoundland is making to the success of our cause, both in providing men for our Services and in assisting to reduce the measure of financial assistance from the United Kingdom Exchequer by means of increased taxation.
In India, the political differences with which hon. Members are familiar have in no way diminished the universal abhorrence of Hitlerism and all it stands for. My Noble Friend the Secretary of State for India is making a statement in another place to-day, and I need only say that nowhere in India is there any disposition to let these differences hamper the common effort to win the war, Money continues to flow into the Viceroy's War Purposes Fund. There is no lack of men ready to answer any call. The production of essential war materials is steadily growing. We greatly appreciate India's contribution to the war effort and we confidently look forward to its continuance in increasing measure. We also recognise with gratitude the readiness of the Government and people of Burma to take their part in the common task.
In this country we do not overlook the vital importance of employing to the full the vast material resources of the Empire. The great potentialities of the Dominions in this respect have been fully explored, important contracts have been placed for munitions, raw materials and foodstuffs and discussions are being energetically pursued for the purchase of materials of all kinds essential for the successful prosecution of the war.
Similar measures are being taken in the Colonies. Arrangements have been made for increased output of important raw materials such as copper, tin and rubber, and of essential foodstuffs for local consumption. Steps have also been taken to secure supplies for the use of other


Empire countries and of our Allies of certain of the more important Colonial crops such as sugar, cocoa and vegetable oils.
The war has had a serious adverse effect upon the budgets of nearly all the Colonies; but the Colonial peoples have clearly shown their determination to contribute their full share to the final victory, and have loyally accepted new measures of taxation which are required partly for their own administrative and defence services, and partly to help the United Kingdom by direct financial contributions. There has been a great expansion of Colonial defence forces during the past two years, but much valuable man-power is still available. Discussions are proceeding between the Departments concerned and also the Colonial Governments as to the best manner of utilising this man-power for the common good.
Time will not permit me to say much to-day about developments on the Home Front. I know that the country has accepted with patriotic resolution the hardships, discomforts and inconveniences caused by the restrictions and regulations which have had to be imposed in the interest of national safety. These restrictions and regulations are, however, being kept under constant review and it has already been possible to make modifications and adjustments to them. There is evidence that the black-out restrictions are found to be even more trying than other and more serious hardships and hazards of war, but we must not rashly relax them since we may at any time be subjected to air raids. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has announced to-day modifications which it is thought can now be made with safety and which will mean a material improvement. I am aware, also, of the difficulties and hardships imposed on so many families by the evacuation scheme and it is possible that some parents will wish to bring their children back to London during the Christmas holidays. I earnestly trust that wiser counsels will prevail. We shall surely all agree that, whatever other dangers it may be able to confront, we must take no unnecessary risk for children.
I have only a few more words to say to conclude a statement which, on this

occasion, has necessarily been long. It is a statement made on the eve of the Christmas Recess. I know that for the people of this country the coming Christmas must lack much of its usual atmosphere of cheerfulness and gaiety. It is a part of the tragedy of war that there will be in so many homes in all the belligerent countries the same longing for the peaceful enjoyment of the simple and happy things of life and that that longing will be denied. The responsibility of those who, for their own ambition, have imposed such a tragedy upon the world is terrible indeed. Yet for us in this country the message of Christmas is not, in truth, a tragic contrast, but a reminder that we are fighting to defend principles and ideals which for 2,000 years have inspired the minds of men and lifted up their hearts.

1.24 p.m.

Mr. Attlee: I am sure that no one in the House will complain that the Prime Minister has given us a more lengthy review than usual, and I am certain that his last words found an echo in all our hearts. When we contrast the spirit of Christmas with the spirit that is ruling in the world to-day, we all hope that another Christmas will see us at peace and that the peace will be a lasting one.
In regard to the telegrams dealing with the naval action in the South Atlantic, we all desire to join in the tribute paid to the gallantry of our sailors. It is one of the almost inevitable conditions of sea warfare that so much of the fighting is done between adversaries of very different strengths, and the way in which our ships, despite their smaller gun-power, tackled and stuck to this very powerful enemy vessel and forced her to take refuge, is worthy of the highest traditions of the British Navy.
The Prime Minister has given us some account of what is occurring at Geneva in the League of Nations. On this side we are opposed to aggression whoever is the aggressor, and we see nothing whatever that can condone this gross attack on Finland. While we are anxious that all possible help that can be given should be given by other nations to the Finnish people, I cannot help contrasting the speed with which the League has worked in this case with the slowness with which it has worked in others. If the same activity by the British Government and


by other League States had been shown in previous acts of aggression, we should not, in my opinion, have been at war to-day.
I desire to refer to one other matter which the Prime Minister mentioned, and that is the position of children at Christmas time. I agree that it is necessary for parents to resist the very natural longing to bring their children back to the dangerous areas, but we have to recognise the strength of that feeling. It is a feeling which is the basis of our family life and of great importance to the country. I feel that more should be done in other directions, and that is to take parents down to see their children. That is the real preventive for a precipitate bringing back of the children to the evacuated areas, particularly in cases where the children are far away. Many of the children from my own constituency are right away in Devonshire. It is a lovely county, but it is quite remote from Limehouse, and the provisions at present do not allow parents to see their children. Human nature demands that; and the utmost ought to be done to enable parents to visit their children if we are to prevent them from crowding back into the dangerous areas.
The Prime Minister dealt with other matters, but I do not intend to follow him any further, except to say that as we ate going for a brief holiday all our thoughts all the time will be for the men in the air, on land and on the sea who are fighting our battles, and also of their relatives and friends at home in their anxieties.

1.30 p.m.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: We are all grateful to the Prime Minister for the statement he has made this morning. He said that it was a long statement, but we would not have had it shorter by a single word. We are also very grateful to him for the moving Christmas message with which he ended his remarks, a message with which we find ourselves in complete accord.
In his opening remarks, the Prime Minister condemned the aggression of Russia upon Finland. I want to say that my friends and I equally condemn aggression by whomever it is done. We have consistently condemned the many instances of aggression which have occurred in the last few years, and we condemn,

no less forcibly and no less wholeheartedly, the aggression of which Finland has been the victim. If the Prime Minister will allow me to say so, we welcome the note of warmth, which has been lacking in some of his recent remarks in regard to the League of Nations, to which he returned this morning. The Government, apparently, have re-discovered the League of Nations and have shown their awareness of its still existing moral authority in the world. We rejoice that they have done so, and we believe that Finland was well guided in making her appeal to the League.
At the same time, I very strongly agree with the Prime Minister that our prime object at the moment must be the defeat of Nazi Germany. We must never allow ourselves to forget what a gigantic enterprise that is, and we must never allow the people of this country to forget it. If, therefore, His Majesty's Government have to follow a policy of non-intervention in Finland we hope that they will pursue it energetically and as vigorously as circumstances permit, and we shall give our full support to the Government in lending such help as they can to the Finnish people in their brave struggle to defend themselves against a powerful aggressor.
On behalf of my friends and myself I should like to join in the tribute which the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition paid to the gallant officers and men of the squadron which has been engaged with the "Graf von Spee." It is an epic fight between three cruisers two mounting only 6-inch guns and this powerful battleship with its 11-inch guns. It is a fight which is worthy to stand in history and live in the memory of the British people alongside the fight of the "Chesapeake" and the "Shannon." When the Prime Minister went on to refer to the action in which a British submarine sunk a German U-boat and torpedoed a cruiser, I wish we could have had more details. They must by now be known to the Germans, and I hope that the Government will be able to let us know soon what class of cruiser it was, where the action took place and the condition of the German cruiser now.
My last word is this: There is one subject with which, I must confess, I thought the Prime Minister would have dealt this morning. No doubt it was outside the scope which he had in his mind for his speech, but it is a very im-


portant subject on which we have had no more than a brief answer to a parliamentary question so far. It is the recent financial agreement with France. As far as I understand that agreement from what is published in the OFFICIAL REPORT, it is one of far-reaching importance, and one which I, personally, welcome whole-heartedly. It seems to me that His Majesty's Government and the French Republic have made an omelette which it will be difficult to unscramble, and I rejoice that it will be difficult to unscramble. It seems to me that we are committed by this far-reaching agreement, to a lasting economic and financial co-operation with France. I hope that soon after the House reassembles some opportunity will be provided in which the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give to the House a statement on the wider issues which are involved in the agreement.

Mr. Ammon: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he can add to his statement on naval operations anything concerning the reported loss of a destroyer?

1.36 p.m.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I should like to ask my right hon. Friend one question arising out of his statement. Would it be possible to give to the House and the country the name of the officer commanding the submarine who so worthily maintained the traditions not only of the Service, but of the submarine service, in action against a German submarine and a German cruiser yesterday, particularly in view of the fact that this officer has been held up to a considerable amount of contempt in foreign countries? It may be that certain naval circumstances make it impossible to disclose the officer's name at the present time, for reasons which will be obvious to hon. Members; but I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether a disclosure of the name could be made at the earliest possible moment, so that the country might know who the officer is who has fought such an extraordinarily good action in the North Sea.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question which I will not press him to answer if he does not feel it is right to do so. Arising out of what he said about the League of Nations and Finland, is it not now

becoming increasingly plain that unless the smaller countries of Europe find some way of standing together against aggression, their independence will be destroyed one by one?

1.37 p.m.

The Prime Minister: In answer to the last question, I think that has been plain for a long time. I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) for calling special attention to the Anglo-French Agreement, which he rightly says is one of really first-rate importance, the effect of which may be more far-reaching and last longer than was even in the minds of those who originally felt it necessary to make such an agreement. I did not refer to it in my statement, because it was, perhaps, a little out of the way, and the Chancellor has already given some account of it, but undoubtedly it is not a matter which can be left out of sight, and when the House meets again, no doubt further statements can be made on it.
With regard to the question of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) about giving the name of the commander of the submarine who performed such notable service at very great risk, I should like very much to give the name, but I am informed that to do so would enable the enemy to identify the submarine, because the officer's name has already been published as commander of that particular vessel, and as we do not wish the submarine to be identified, I am afraid that, for the present at any rate, we must refrain from making the name public.
As to the question asked by the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), I had not seen the announcement in the Press, and I would not like to say anything more than what is stated in the newspaper announcement which I have before me. The hon. Member will have noted that this was not a loss in action, but was an accident, of the sort which, I suppose, is almost inevitable in darkness, without lights, as is the natural condition that exists nowadays. I am afraid it is another case where there is heavy loss of life. The Navy are suffering very severely. The bulk of the burden of the war is at present falling on the Navy. They are doing their duty,


as they have always done; they are suffering losses; but they are also preserving the safety of the country.

1.40 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: With regard to the officer to whom the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) referred, would it not be well, if the Government could so arrange it, for a wider statement to be made of the circumstances in which the "Bremen" was allowed to pass? There is a great deal of criticism of that action which, I think, is quite unjustifiable. The specific questions put in a London newspaper this morning are not helpful. In my view, in the particular area in which the incident occurred, and having regard to the future of our action in relation to existing enemy ships at the end of the war, I believe that the commander of the submarine did exactly the right thing. I hope the Government will take steps to see that that is specifically and adequately stated.

1.41 p.m.

The Prime Minister: I have already called the attention of my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty to the desirability of giving further information, because I saw that questions were being asked which seemed to be entirely unjustified and largely founded on misunderstanding; and my right hon. Friend did, in fact, give information to the Press yesterday which, I think, in most newspapers, is reproduced in different forms. It is clear that the only possible action which the submarine could have taken to stop this vessel would have been to torpedo her. To do that would have been to do ourselves what we are denouncing the enemy for doing. The more one sees accounts of the results of enemy action, the more one hates and despises an enemy who behaves in that way; and the last thing we ought to do is to put ourselves in the same position.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Prime Minister also ask the Ministry of Information to make a special effort to put this view of the matter across in the neutral countries, in order to show the spirit in which we are conducting the war at sea?

The Prime Minister: That has been done already.

MILK PRICES AND AGRICULTURAL POLICY.

1.42 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: It is rather a descent from high war policy to the low or intermediate grades of milk. I rather regret that we should have to begin a Debate on the subject of agriculture, at least from the point of view of one commodity, at such a late hour. We have such a short time in which to debate the subject that, although there are many questions one would like to raise which are of vital importance to the well-being of the country, we are compelled, from the nature of the case, to confine ourselves to a very narrow limit. I am among the many people in this country who think that at this time food is perhaps just as important as shells, munitions, and shipping; it is a pity we are not in a position adequately to discuss this question. I will confine myself exclusively to the question of milk. I need hardly stress the importance of milk as a food. Doctors, scientists and nutrition experts have been unanimous, not for a day, a week, or a year, but for very many years, on the absolute necessity of an adequate supply of milk if the health and the well-being of our people are to be maintained. The other day I saw a concise statement which sums up all that I would care to say on that side of the milk question:
Milk has come more and more in recent years to be recognised as a commodity vital to the nation's health. Almost with one voice, doctors and scientists urge us to increase our milk consumption, and point out the inadequacy of present consumption in relation even to the lowest estimates of national needs. It is common knowledge that milk, in its liquid form, enters hardly at all into the households of the very poor, and quite insufficiently into the great majority of working class households.
There is such a relationship between the price of milk and the consumption of milk that any variation in price is apt in a very short space of time to reflect itself in either a higher or a lower consumption. Therefore, it is the duty of every Member of the House to be ever vigilant when there is a danger of an unnecessary increase in the price of the most important foodstuff in the country. We have learned recently from the wireless and from the Press that there is to be an application for an increase in the price of liquid milk. I understand that


the Milk Marketing Board has made certain proposals to the Central Milk Committee and has asked that body to agree to an increase, and that the figure of 4d. a gallon has been mentioned. In existing circumstances, all that the Milk Marketing Board need do is to have a meeting with the Central Milk Committee, and if those two bodies agree between themselves on what the increase is to be, all that follows is that the consumer has to pay. Unless and until the Ministry of Food plays a part in directing the milk policy of this country, not only may consumers suffer an increase of price, but there may be a large reduction in the consumption of this important food. As such an increase must, inevitably, reduce consumption, the working classes will be the first to suffer. That is indicated by every investigation that has been made, and it is therefore our duty, even at this late hour before the Recess, to examine carefully any proposal such as that of the Milk Marketing Board.
I do not make any attack on the board. Rather do I pay it a very great compliment. It has an efficient organisation. It has organised the wholesale distribution effectively. Since 1933 it has put millions of pounds into the pockets of milk producers. I think that the difference between the receipts in 1939 and those in 1933, the year in which the board commenced, is about £15,000,000. From that point of view, the board has conducted the business of the milk producers very efficiently. It has carried out a successful advertising campaign. It has undertaken and financed experiments. The report published by the board on its five years' work is a very fine document on which it is entitled to be complimented. Therefore, I wish it to be clear that there is no intended or implied attack on the Milk Marketing Board in what I say. What we have to remember, however, is that this is a producers' board, behind which there is a compelling force all the time to increase the price of liquid milk—sometimes of necessity, but on other occasions unnecessarily. I shall have something to say later about the figures, to which, perhaps, the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) will try to make some reply, although I doubt whether he can reply effectively. I suggest that this is a classic example of a producers' board

looking after the interests of its members, regardless of the consequences to the rest of the community.
If one looks at the history of this matter, one can see what the Board has accomplished in terms of money provided for the producers of milk. In the first year of the Board's operations the price of liquid milk was 14.01d. per gallon. After five years of organising the marketing of milk, during which savings ought to have been effected and a price reduction to the consumer might have been expected we discover, in 1939, that the price of liquid milk is 16.26d. per gallon. The Board has organised so effectively and has "cut out the dead wood" to such an extent, that it has increased the price by 21d. per gallon. The distribution margin in 1933 was Io.82d. per gallon. Now it is 11.22d. per gallon, making a total increase in the price of liquid milk in 1939, as compared with 1933, of 2.65d. per gallon.
Our general understanding of the milk marketing scheme in 1931 and succeeding years was that it would not only improve the marketing of the commodity, but would, as a result of economies, bring about a decrease in the price of the commodity. All that the Milk Marketing Board has done so far has been, not to effect economy in distribution, not to bring about a reduction in the price of the commodity, but to increase both the price paid to the producer of the commodity and the price paid to the retailer of the commodity. In 1934, there were 46,800 producer retailers. In 1939, there were 63,300. So, instead of organising the marketing of the commodity and removing a great deal of waste and unnecessary expense in distribution, the Board has brought about an increase in the cost of distribution since 1933. I ask the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Food, or both, to say whether there is any justification for the present demand for an increase in the price of milk.
If a case can be made out, neither I nor my hon. Friends will stand in the way. If circumstances arising out of the war, or any other cause can be shown to have increased the cost of production to such a point that some agency must be brought in to remunerate the producer, then, obviously, the producer is entitled to relief. But I ask the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Food or both—and


they have opportunities for consultation as they sit there together—to say whether this proposal to increase the price of liquid milk is based upon an increase in the cost of feeding-stuffs, an increase in the cost of replacements, an increase in wages, or on a decrease in yield, due to the feeding-stuffs now available, not being as good as those which were available before the war. We are entitled to figures in justification of any increase which may be allowed, either through the agency of the two bargaining committees, or by the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Food. The only figures that I have been able to find are those of Mr. J. H. Heap, one of the most critical of agricultural writers who is always urging the Milk Marketing Board to do more for the producers than they have done so far. In the December issue of the "Daily Farmer" we find a statement on these lines:
Assuming these prices (referring to prewar costs of production) to have been approximately the same just before war Has declared, we can calculate the effect of rises in the succeeding eight weeks. Purchased foods went up by one-seventh, that is equal to 0.5d. per gallon; paid labour by one-twelfth, that is 0.2d. per gallon; herd replacement by one-fourth, that is o.4d. per gallon. So there is a total increase on those three items of over rd. per gallon.
If we accept the figures of this ardent supporter of the milk producers, a case can be made out for an increase of rd. per gallon, assuming that those were the only effects of the war. But, since the war started certain other things have happened, apart from those mentioned by this correspondent. The Milk Marketing Board find themselves in a position in which all milk sold for manufacturing purposes can be increased in price. I will give the price variations since just before the war. Perhaps if I quote the Milk Marketing Board there will be less agitation than if I give my own figures. In this month's "Home Farmer," the monthly document of the Milk Marketing Board, the editor, on behalf of the Board, makes this statement:
Prompt action which covers, but which is not related solely to lost 'liquid' trade, has resulted in increased prices being prescribed by the Board for all manufacturing milk supplied after October 31 last.
Milk sold in the higher categories (condensed milk, milk powder, fresh cream, bottled cream, tinned cream, etc.) now realises 2½ d. a gallon more, and the old

formula prices for milk converted into butter and cheese are dispensed with in fvavour of a fixed price which will give a higher net return to the pool."
There the Board admit that since 31st October almost all milk sold for manufacturing purposes has been increased in price by an average of 2½. per gallon. They go on to say:
It does not imply, however, that the Board are blinding themselves to the fact that circumstances may compel an adjustment of 'liquid' prices as an ultimate means of maintaining supplies.
It is of vital importance at this time that milk production shall not fall below normal requirements.
And if rising costs of production necessitate an increase in liquid milk prices, the Board will not hesitate to apply it.
That quotation, as hon. Members will observe, involves three things. It states, first, in effect that manufacturing prices have been inreased all round; secondly, that there is no immediate demand for an increase in liquid milk prices—for, remember, it is the "Home Farmer" just sent out by the Milk Marketing Board which gives this story, and not myself—and the third thing is a warning that we must maintain supplies. There are many ways of maintaining supplies or losing supplies. It has been said that the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food a fortnight ago in releasing all control of meat prices has so increased the price of less than fat meat that many milk producers will be changing over to the more profitable side of meat production. I do not know how far that is true. I have a letter this morning from one who is, I believe, the chairman of the National Farmers Union Milk Section in Yorkshire, who sends me along an advertisement showing that one farmer, due to his failure to obtain appropriate foodstuffs, is selling off his herd of 60 cattle. I entirely agree with this warning of the "Home Farmer," that we must maintain supplies of milk, but to those three statements of the Milk Marketing Board I would add a fourth: Neither can we afford so to raise prices to the consumer as to result in diminished consumption, for once liquid milk consumption starts to decline, not only will it hit the farmer as such, but it will also hit the health of the nation.
I concede at once that the farmer is entitled to an economic price, but on the figures so far made available to us, if


the all-round cost of production has increased by rd. per gallon and the all-round price of manufacturing milk has gone up by 2½ a gallon, clearly those items ought to balance themselves in the account, and so far no case appears to have been made out for this increase in price of something like 4d.a gallon. I know how ready farmers are to swing over from one commodity to another if they feel that the one is going to be more profitable than the other, but this House cannot afford to allow our milk production to decline to a point where it endangers supplies to the people, and I, with my colleagues and, I am sure, hon. Members in all parts of the House, not only want to see the people of this country educated into the value of milk as a food, but we want to see the school schemes go on and the local authority schemes extended. We want to see the farmer have a square deal, but we should not be doing our duty if we sat here and allowed increases to be superimposed by the Milk Marketing Board and the Central Milk Committee without rhyme or reason and without submitting facts and data which would justify any such increases.
Therefore, I want to sum up as follows: We are anxious to maintain and even to increase the consumption of milk in this country; we want to see the school schemes continued and extended; we want to see the local authority schemes extended—and we understand that they are not nearly so broad at the moment as they ought to be—we want to see ceaseless propaganda on the virtues of milk as a food, but we insist that the Government must use their machinery, and their finance, if necessary, to keep the price within the purchasing power of the people, and I hope the Minister of Food or the Minister of Agriculture will tell us to-day that there will be no increase in price beyond what can be justified on the basis of ascertained facts and that there will be no increase in prices charged to the liquid milk consumer in this country.

2.2 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I apologise for intervening at this early stage, and I would not have done so if I had not thought that it was for the general convenience of the House, because I think a reply to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) may pre-

vent the discussion wasting itself in hammering at an open door. I am grateful to the hon. Member for having raised this point, and I think there is agreement in all parts of the House as to the necessity for this country, in war as in peace—perhaps in war even more than in peace—securing an adequate supply of milk at reasonable prices.
Perhaps it would clear things up if I said in a word what are the present relations between the Milk Marketing Board and the Government. The Milk Marketing Board is at present in precisely the same statutory position as that in which it was before the war commenced, and it has not had the experience, as has been the case with other marketing boards, such as the Bacon Marketing Board and the Potato Marketing Board, of being absorbed in the Ministry of Food. It is operating under the scheme approved by this House, and it is, as the hon. Member said, a producers' organisation, framed in peace time to secure the position of producers and to assist in the marketing of milk. The Milk Marketing Board is at present a separate legal entity, and I could not let this occasion pass without paying a special tribute to the work which the Board has done in the national interest since the war commenced. I will only mention one instance. The problem of evacuation confronted the Board and the Government with the removal into distant and unfamiliar places of the Board's best customers, namely, the children, and advance arrangements were made, in co-operation with the Board, for securing that where these children went there would be supplies of milk for them. I am bound to say that that work which was done by the Milk Marketing Board was very well done—[Interruption]—with help from the trade it is true, but in so far as the important contribution which the Milk Marketing Board made to that scheme is concerned, it would be wrong for me to pass it over without a word of thanks on behalf of the public.
As regards the future, I am in agreement with the general tenour of the hon. Member's remarks. For the future, if war conditions are superimposed upon normal peace-time commercial practice, it will be necessary, as I conceive it, for the Government to assume responsibility for milk policy as a whole during war time as regards both production, price and distribution. I should deprecate any un-


due disturbance of the actual machinery which the Board have built up in the past for performing its duties. I think it will be agreed that it must be subject during the war to general direction. That is the policy when the national interest demands it.
Before I come to the question of costs of production, to which the hon. Gentleman addressed himself, I would say that the war has made many problems in milk policy which are different from those of peace time. The milk-in-schools scheme has been gravely dislocated because of the removal of schools, which are the normal channels of distribution. The work of providing local authorities with means whereby supplies of milk at cheap prices might be made to certain necessitous persons has been hampered and hindered by the great calls made upon local authorities in other directions since the war started. I am anxious that these beneficent schemes should be stimulated during the war to the utmost possible practical extent. These things must be examined anew in the light of war conditions and in the light of the dispersal of the population. I am sure the House will be anxious that there should be no flagging in pressing on with that work.
Our immediate problem is that of price. Then- has been since the war no rise in the price of liquid milk for ordinary consumption, in spite of many factors which work towards increased costs of production. This is normally the season of the year when the cost of producing milk is above normal because grass has to be replaced by feeding-stuffs. Over and above that seasonal rise the war has brought upon milk producers certain unknown costs. Feeding-stuffs are subject to a Maximum Prices Order, but in many cases the short supply of feeding-stuffs has led to the maximum price becoming the normal price. Whereas the maximum price itself as fixed was higher than was paid in some districts before the war, we find that the maximum price has now been reached. The feeding-stuffs which are not controlled, namely, home-produced ones, have also risen sharply in price.

Mr. John Morgan: Is there any evidence that there has also been a deterioration in the quality of the feeding-stuffs?

Mr. Morrison: That is a matter to which I was addressing myself. The hon. Member for Don Valley said there was an element of cost, which it is hard accurately to estimate, which arises from the fact that the substitution of one feeding-stuff for another which is in short supply has an adverse effect on the milk yield. The cow is a somewhat temperamental lady and resents having the habits of a lifetime disturbed even by the war. She is consequently inclined to react and to show her annoyance if one feeding-stuff is substituted for another by yielding less milk. There has been also an increase in the transport charges for delivering feeding-stuffs to which farms were previously subject. Another element is the decline in liquid milk consumption due, among other factors, to the milk-in schools scheme being so gravely dislocated. There is a large amount of milk which under peace-time conditions would have been sold for the milk-in-schools scheme at prices bringing to the pool something like is. a gallon, but which has been diverted at butter at 7d. a gallon. This has meant a loss to the pool that ought to be taken account of. There have also been increases in the cost of labour, and they are inevitable.
The history of the matter is that the Milk Board inform us that they were proposing under their statutory powers to negotiate with the Central Committee for a rise for liquid milk of 4d. a gallon. That has confronted the Ministry of Food with a difficult problem which has two facets. The one is that we are anxious that this most valuable food should be available at reasonable prices which will not check its consumption. We are equally anxious that the price returned to the producers of milk will not be such as to discourage its production. The two factors must balance one against the other—an adequate consumption, and a reward to the producer to make sure, as far as we can, that there is an ample supply. We have had under consideration the position arising from the decline in sales of liquid milk since the war and the prospective increases in the costs of production, because we have to look ahead.
We have decided that some increase in the producers' returns is justified. We are, however, anxious that a general rise in the retail price of liquid milk at the present time should be avoided. In


order to permit a full examination of the position and a review of the future level of prices for liquid and manufacturing milk, the Ministry of Food will make a temporary grant to the Milk Marketing Board of an amount sufficient to raise producers' returns by 3d. per gallon in January and February, and 2½. per gallon in March, above those realised in the corresponding months of 1939. Steps will be taken to ensure that these increases are passed on to producers. The arrangement is conditional on the maintenance for the present of the existing level of retail prices of liquid milk.

Mr. T. Williams: I tried in my observations to show that the Milk Marketing Board themselves were not attempting to put up figures and to provide any facts on which to base calculations. Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether any figures are available?

Mr. Morrison: I am not familiar with the particular publications from which the hon. Member quoted, but, of course, the Milk Marketing Board did furnish us with figures justifying their proposed request for 4d. a gallon increase. They are voluminous figures and difficult to deal with in a sort compass. In effect the calculation was that for purchased goods the increase would be an amount of 1.52d. per gallon—for home-grown foods id. per gallon; labour,.32d. per gallon; miscellaneous items,.26d.; depreciation,.10d.; the total being 3.20d. In respect of that they asked for 4d. One reason why we in the Ministry of Food were anxious to avoid the bargaining process which normally goes on when the Milk Marketing Board have a case for an increase is that the distributors, if there is to be an increase in the retail price, generally attempt to secure an increase in the distributive margin as well. I think it would be in the national interest that this temporary assistance should be given to the Milk Marketing Board in order to secure that there is no decline in production over this season and to give the opportunity for the milk question as a whole to be considered under war conditions, so that any future plans for the supply and distribution of this important food can be worked out in sufficient time to make them a success.

Mr. J. Morgan: Has the Minister stated all the factors in coming to his decision?

Is he trying to provide for a surplus supply to keep the condensed milk factories going, because there is another factor.

Mr. Morrison: I did not want to make it too long a story, but of course that was one of the factors in my mind. The armed Forces are naturally making a very heavy demand upon the supplies of condensed milk. While it is always possible to divert milk from manufacture into liquid sales one has to have regard to limiting factors. First, one must always have a surplus of milk in order to secure an adequate supply, and, secondly, when there is an abnormal demand, as there is at present, for condensed milk and other forms of processed milk, it is necessary to make provision for that at prices which are economic.

Mr. T. Williams: Am I to understand that the 3d. per gallon increase is to be given for all milk produced, or only for the milk sold for liquid consumption?

Mr. Morrison: For liquid consumption. It will be worked through the pool price. It will be an increase of 3d. per gallon in the pool price. The price is arrived at by the board when it has received all its revenue, both from liquid milk and manufactured milk.

Mr. Williams: The pool price includes the money received for the sale of liquid milk as well as the milk sold for manufacturing purposes. What I am anxious to know is whether, seeing that the board have already, from 31st October, increased the price of almost all the milk sold for manufacturing purposes by 21d. per gallon, they are giving an increase of 3d. on top of the 2½d.?

Mr. Morrison: The amount of money which will be given to the board will be sufficient to raise producers' returns by 3d. gallon, taken generally, over what producers' returns were in January and February last year. It covers the whole field.

Mr. Williams: Then we are perfectly clear now that although the Milk Marketing board have made out a case for an increase of 3.2d. per gallon—the right hon. Gentleman has conceded them 30 points out of the 32 they asked for—he is going to give them not 3d. per gallon but 3d. plus 2½d. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The right hon. Gentleman is


not, of course, going to give the 2½d. They are making the right hon. Gentleman pay that in the excess price they are charging for milk used for making condensed milk, which is sold to the troops and paid for by the Government. My simple point is that it is one thing for the right hon. Gentleman to increase the price of milk sold for liquid consumption by 3d., since there has been no increase from the beginning of the war, but quite another thing to give the 3d. in the case of milk for manufacture, which has been increased by 2½,d. since the war.

Mr. Morrison: The comparisons I made were all on exactly the same basis when I enumerated the figures given to us by the Milk Marketing Board, which added up to 3.20d. That was the additional cost, as reflected in the additional requirements, over the whole return, exactly the same as the proposed grant is. All the sources of revenue of the Milk Marketing Board have been taken into consideration both in estimating the increased demand and in the Ministry of Food making their decision, so that the two things exactly pari passu.

2.23 p.m.

Dr. Haden Guest: I am glad to have heard the Minister announce a milk policy which at least has the effect, apparently, of not raising the price of liquid milk to the consumer, a matter which I am concerned about- very seriously, especially in view of the fall in milk consumption recently, which the right hon. Gentleman knows has been very severe. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman really meant it when he said that he was not familiar with the publications quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), because what he quoted from was "The Home Farmer, "which is described as the official journal of the Milk Marketing Board.

Mr. Morrison: What I meant was that I was not familiar with that particular issue of it. I have read the publication.

Dr. Guest: I hardly thought it was possible that the right hon. Gentleman was so remote from current controversies and current literature, but I decided to ask him because I frankly did not understand what he meant. But although I am grateful, as I am sure every hon. Member on this side is grateful

for the fact that the price of liquid milk to the consumer is not to be raised, I do not feel that the Minister's statement goes far enough, not from the standpoint of agricultural policy but from the standpoint of the importance of nutrition in national policy. I want to make a very high claim for it, and to say that nutrition policy ought to be considered as carefully and gone into in as great detail as is policy for the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. We all realise that the nation is in a period of lull as far as war operations are concerned, and that in the near future there is likely to be a very much greater strain on the nation's resources, on the nation's manpower and on the civilians in the nation.
Further, the Minister did not mention to-day what, perhaps, it was difficult to bring into the Debate, the questions of how we are to feed our dairy cattle in the future, if there is to be a similar difficulty about importing foodstuffs from overseas as there is now, and how agriculture is to be reoriented to provide the foodstuffs which were previously grown in this country for the feeding of dairy cows. We ought to have, not only a programme such as the Minister has outlined now for the months of January, February and March—I think I am correct in that—but also a carefully-thought-out programme of milk production, with a view to milk consumption, over the next three years.
This is a very important matter from the standpoint of nutrition. Milk consumption is important for all purposes, and the highest medical authorities, whom I shall quote in a moment, lay down that the average consumption for all adult persons should be half a pint a day. Unfortunately that is much nearer to the average consumption of the nation as a whole. Consumption of milk, while desirable for adults, is the keystone to the nutritional structure with regard to infants. It is essential, too, for the expectant and the nursing mothers, who are bringing up the new citizens who are to replace those w ho, in too great a number I am afraid, will be leaving us. Upon our milk policy will depend our reserve of child life, a matter which is most important from every point of view.
I do not want to go into too great detail at this moment with regard to the place of the science of nutrition at the present


day, but I want to make plain to the House, and I hope to an even wider audience, that this claim for the irreplaceable value of milk is not based alone on the opinions of the medical and nutritional experts of this country, but on the opinion arrived at by nutritional experts who have studied this matter all over the world. The matter has been very carefully considered by the Health Committee of the League of Nations for more than 10 years. In the view of those who are best qualified to speak, the consumption of milk should not remain at its present level but should be very greatly increased. It is implied, in what the Minister has been pointing out, that there is difficulty in maintaining the consumption of liquid milk at its present level.
I want to underline the weight of world-wide scientific and medical authority which is behind the case for the increased consumption of milk. In 1919, when I first went to Vienna and Budapest, I had the interesting experience on the journey out of meeting a lady who is very well known to-day in nutrition circles, Dr. Harriette Chick. She was taking out to Vienna a short and somewhat hurriedly-printed leaflet giving the latest results of the researches on vitamins, especially with regard to milk, which at that time had been completed in the Lister Institute. I emphasise that it was in 1919 because our knowledge of vitamins and of their importance in milk and in protective foods generally dated—not scientifically but in practical application—from that time. Dr. Chick was able to help the unfortunate victims of the other war, as they call it in France, in Vienna in 1919. She gave me a copy of that particularly small leaflet—it was only four pages, like a little pamphlet—and I took it with me to Budapest. I presented it there to the Minister of Health and it was printed and circulated all over the schools in Hungary. It was applied in Hungary before it was actually applied in this country.
From that date an increasing amount of attention has been given to this subject. In 1925, the Assembly of the League of Nations requested their Health Committee to study the subject of the regulation, manufacture and sale of food products. In 1926–27, investigation in regard to milk extended to Japan. In 1927, there was a tremendous campaign

of information lecture in the United States and a great scientist came from Japan to this country to study with Professor Mellanby, one of the great experts on this subject, and also to the continent. In 1928, the French Government asked for nutrition to be placed on the programme of work of the committee. In 1931, the Health Committee of the League of Nations carried out a collective tour in the United States to study the milk supply in that country. In 1932, there were studies in Chile. In 1933, there was a study by Dr. Mackenzies of the nutrition of the poorer classes of the United Kingdom. In 1934, there were inquiries in the United Kingdom, France, the United States, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and the U.S.S.R. leading to the production of what is known as the Burnett-Ackroyd Report. I mention all these things because they show that there has been a constantly increasing volume of evidence of the value and importance of the study of nutrition and of food, and that all of it comes down very much to a greater understanding of the importance of milk.
In a report which I have in my hand upon the physiological bases of nutrition there is a quotation from the Burnett-Ackroyd Report to the League and it Says:
Nutrition is put forward not only as a physiological problem, but also as an economic, agricultural, industrial and commercial problem. Health workers are appealing to the economists for the realisation of their plans. Economists are beginning to be guided by the lofty aims of preventive medicine.
Further, it says:
Production, distribution and consumption have hitherto been considered mainly as economic problems, without sufficient regard to their effects on public health, but the effect of the economic depression"—
that was written in 1931–32—
has directed attention to the gap which almost everywhere exists between dietary needs, as determined by physiology, and the means of satisfying them under existing conditions. The general problem of nutrition as it presents itself to-day is that of harmonising economic and public health development.
There is a further quotation I should like to mention because it has particular reference to what the Minister of Food—that is, in fact, what he is—said earlier. In a discussion in the Second Committee of the Assembly, introduced by Mr. Stanley Bruce, the Australian delegate,


he stressed the necessity for marrying agriculture and public health, and said that was desirable to take, as a remedy for malnutrition in the agricultural crisis, the necessity of
changing the incidence of State protective subsidies so that they should serve to increase consumption lather than to restrict production.
It is rather interesting that, consciously or not, the right hon. Gentleman is imitating the procedure laid down as described by Mr. Stanley Bruce at the League of Nations in 1935. I mention these things because I think it should be clearly understood that the weight of opinion behind this scheme for the consideration of nutrition as one of the most important considerations before the Government at the present time is not one made without world-wide authority and the backing from scientific people all over the world, assembled sometimes at the League of Nations, but sometimes in their own countries.
In 1935, at the 19th Meeting of the LL.D. Conference, the matter was brought up in regard to the health of the workers. As the result of these inquiries the Health Committee of the League appointed an expert committee, and I will venture to read to the House the names of the expert committee; I think they ought to be on record in the proceedings of the House, as they have produced this "Report on the physiological bases of nutrition,"whicI7 is, in fact, the distilled essence of the researches of scientific workers all over the habitable and civilised world over a period of years. The technical commission was represented as far as Austria is concerned by Professor During, Professor of Physiology at Vienna University; the United Kingdom was represented by Professor Cathcart, Professor Mellanby, Sir John Boyd Orr; France by M. M. J. Alquier, Professor Andre Mayer, and Professor L. Lapicque; Italy by Professor Filippo Bottazzi; Scandinavia by Professor Wilier, Professor SchiÕtz, and Professor Fridericia; the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics by Professor Sbarsky. The scientists of different countries, fortunately, have a scientific international of their own which is not necessarily connected with political beliefs. The United States of America was represented by Professor McCollum, Dr. Mary Swartz Rose, and Dr. Sebrell, the Secretary being Dr. Harriette Chick, a lady whom

I had the pleasure of meeting in 1919 and whose name I have mentioned before.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: In the train.

Dr. Guest: I do not know whether there is anything sinister about meeting Dr. Harriette Chick in the train, but I. can assure the House that we had a very interesting scientific conversation. As a result of the first report of this very important committee, the names of which I have given, there have been studies carried out in practically all the medical, scientific and nutritional academies in the world. The main idea underlying this nutrition report is the expression of the new science of nutrition in regard to protective foods and supplementary energy-yielding foods, special requirements during maternity and growth; and the adoption not of the indispensable minimum, but the optimum diet as the standard now held to be necessary has met with general approval.
The final result is the present report which I have in my hands, the "Report on the physiological bases of nutrition." This is a very technical document in detail, and I desire to refer to it only in so far as it establishes the importance of the science of nutrition, and as it establishes the question of the quantities of milk which should be drunk. There is no doubt that in the opinion of this authoritative committee, whose authority cannot be questioned—in fact, it is recognised by the Government—they say that the amount of milk which should be consumed by children and by nursing and expectant mothers is not half a pint, which is something like the quantity used at present, but something over two pints; two and a quarter pints is given in this report, being 1,000 grammes in weight. That is a very different story from half a pint. It is not enough to maintain the consumption at the level of half a pint, or even if it could be raised to maintain the consumption at the level of a pint, because that is not enough in ordinary times, and certainly not enough in times when the nation is likely to be subjected to more and more severe strains as the period of the war continues.
There has been recently published a very interesting report—and I understand it was also financed—by the Milk Marketing Board, called "Milk and Nutrition." Those who desire to study the matter in


detail could not do better than refer to that Milk Marketing Board experiment for evidence of the immense value to be derived by giving children a larger amount of milk than is normally consumed at the present time. It was an experiment completely carried out on 6,097 children in five different places, some in Scotland and some in England, and it shows the immensely great improvement in health by giving them extra quantities of milk. This is a valuable publication, and one of the most recent publications they have brought out, and, as I have said, it is financed by the Milk Marketing Board.
There is a further publication to which I wish to refer, which I am sure will recommend itself to the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen opposite, because the two latest signatures to the appointments made to the Advisory Committee on Nutrition are Kingsley Wood and Walter E. Elliot—names not unknown to the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen opposite. This is the report of the Advisory Committee on Nutrition which was published in 1937 and which summarises the position up to date as far as this country is concerned. I will not weary the House with too many details, but I must read one or two of the expressions of opinion culled from this report because they are so very definite and they go so very far beyond what the announced policy of the Government to-day has been. The committee recommend that:
The desirable amount of milk for children is from one to two pints per day, for expectant or nursing mothers about two pints per day, and for other adult members of the community half a pint of milk daily. If these quantities were consumed, the present consumption of liquid milk would be at least doubled.
That is very important and I hope it can be done. I desire to take one further quotation from this report which is in the summary. It says:
From the health standpoint, there is no other single measure which would do more to improve the health, development and resistance to disease of the rising generation than a largely increased consumption of safe milk, especially by mothers, children and adolescents, and we hope that in dealing with the problem of milk now and in the future, the primary objective of the State will be to ensure that a supply of safe milk, to the

amount we have recommended above, is brought within the purchasing power of the poorest.
As far as the Minister's policy announced to-day goes, it will help in that direction but it does not deal with the enormously important question which will have to be faced very soon, not only of maintaining the existing supply of milk, but actually of increasing it. As is well known, our milk consumption is very low in comparison with that in Scandinavia and in the United States of America, and I put it to the House that the scientific case for the increase of milk consumption is irresistible. I have no doubt that, from the scientific point of view, the Minister will himself agree. I want to put it further, that it is out of this kind of knowledge of nutrition that civilisation can be built, and it is the business of the Government to take whatever steps are necessary to implement this policy, not only to maintain the existing supply, but to increase it. The evidence is irrefutable and irresistible, and I hope the Government will not remain content with the policy they have to-day announced, but will go forward to a bolder and more far-reaching policy, looking forward to an increase in dairy herds in this country with any necessary changes in agricultural practices that may involve, and an increase in liquid milk consumption, partly for war purposes, and partly because at this time there could be no greater contribution to the future of the civilisation of this country than to secure that all children have, not only good, but optimum nutrition.

2.46 p.m.

Mr. W. Roberts: I welcome very much the announcement which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has made today with regard to milk, because I believe that it will be found, as it was in the last war, that the right way to deal with agricultural produce is to fix, not a maximum or a minimum price, but a definite price which the farmer is to get. At the same time, I am very glad that the Government are not to allow an increase in price to the consumer. Although I do do want to dwell long on this question of milk, I might remind the House of one factor—it has not been mentioned today—as it affects producers. Actually, the price the farmer got in October was very nearly a penny below that which he got in October last year. As a result


of the very mysterious calculations which the Milk Marketing Board always does, that would have continued to be the case, in all probability, throughout November and subsequent months.
The only other observation I would like to make on this subject is one which was not referred to by the Minister or by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). I would like a very rigorous examination made into the costs of distribution to-day. The milkman who calls at my house in North London frequently comes now at 2.30 p.m. He used to come before breakfast. When asked what the difficulty was, he explained that there was now only one delivery of milk each day—that is general, I believe, throughout the country—that he had a very much larger round, and that it was not his fault, as he was working far longer hours than previously, but the fault of the Government. The Government are long suffering, no doubt. In that case, I think he was blaming those who are easy to blame but who are perhaps not to blame on this occasion. That economy in distribution: the increase in the size of the rounds and the decrease in the number of milkmen, must have reduced considerably the cost of distributing milk. That is a matter which deserves consideration.
The question with which I want to deal now is the more general one of agricultural production during the war. When we decided to raise this question to-day it was because we thought it a pity that the House should disperse for Christmas without having an opportunity to discuss what may become an increasingly important question—that of food production generally in this country, and the steps which are being taken to increase and intensify in every way possible the amount of food produced in Great Britain. We welcome what seemingly has been the main occupation of the Ministry of Agriculture since the war started, namely, the ploughing-out campaign, which is to add 1,500,000 acres to the arable acreage of the country. I hope the Minister will be able to give us some report on how that is going. My information is that it is going well, that farmers are anxious to co-operate; but there are, of course, certain difficulties. The main difficulty that I see about this policy is that it is not sufficient to concentrate all our energies on ploughing out to per cent. of the grassland without intensifying production over

the whole of our agriculture. I wonder whether there are not means by which all agricultural production, whether from land which has been arable in the past or from grassland which will remain grassland after this ploughing-out, cannot be the subject of an even more energetic campaign.
I realise that the 1,500,000 acres which will be ploughed constitute a big undertaking—rather more, I believe, than the whole acreage that was ploughed out during the last war. But do not let us be too sanguine about that, because even then we shall still have approximately 2,000,000 acres below the 1918 figure. That increase, I suppose, would give us something like £30,000,000 more in wholesale prices of cereal products. We should not be satisfied that that represents the whole of the effort that the agricultural community is to be expected to make in this war. One of the overriding difficulties of farming at present, one of which I hear from all corners of this country, is that the farmer is anxious to produce more, but that increased production means increased capital. The Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Food have agreed to price increases for various commodities. Some of these increases have taken place under control, and some by themselves. These increases, undoubtedly, will put more money into the pockets of the farmers, but that does not solve the whole problem.
It is an unequal way, and an extravagant way in some cases, to finance new production by increasing prices. It does not always reach the people who need it most. There are plenty of people who are going to grow wheat this year and who have never done so before, and the increased price for the first crop of wheat will not help them. Therefore, I ask whether this question of credit, of getting new money into the industry, cannot be the subject of a much more energetic approach by the Government? I would quote one letter that I have received from a very successful Gloucestershire farmer, who refers to this matter and mentions as an instance a farm that he knows in his neighbourhood,
a 700-acre farm, which once, with the aid of folded sheep, grew good crops of corn, now run as a ranch by the owner and his two or three sheepdogs. The cottages are right out of repair and there is no village near.
I will not quote further, but there are


farmers who have got so low that it needs something much more energetic than what the Government are now doing to get from them the production which it is possible to get. I know that the authorities have power to turn out an existing tenant and let the farm again. That is a very drastic procedure in many cases. The man who is there may not be the best of farmers. If he were, perhaps he would be better off at the present time, but you have to deal with the whole agricultural community. It is no use saying that good farmers can get credit. It is the rather less good farmers who are still responsible for many thousands of acres, and it is they who have to be enabled to produce as well as the more successful ones, who can get credit, perhaps, quite easily from the bank.
There are some long-term improvements, such as drainage, which must and ought to be carried out at the present time. The present cumbersome procedure of catchment boards and drainage boards is an exceedingly slow process. I have had an example brought to my attention of a drainage board which applied for permission to do a job of work last February, and it has just received provisional sanction for the work to be done, and there has to be a local inquiry before the drainage board can act. There will not be any land drained during the next six months under procedure of that sort. The question of drainage should be speeded up. There are a great number of detailed points to be dealt with. There is the continual anomaly that "because I live on the wrong side of the Scottish border I cannot get the advantages that the Scotsman has managed to get. "It is the old story. There are grants for drainage in Scotland which there are not in England, and there are other anomalies, such as that in which drainage grants are given if they help a group of farmers but not if they help one farmer. These are all matters with which hon. Members who are interested are familiar, and I ask the Minister to cut out these anomalies. There is idle labour at the present time, and later on, if the war goes on a year or two years, it may be that there will be a shortage of labour and there will be no chance of carrying out relatively long-term improvements. Surely now, and not next summer, is the time to drain land which would grow

crops immediately if only it had that improvement.
The other point I want to raise is the difficulty in which many farmers find themselves in regard to labour at the present time. The Minister said that the calls of the Army on the agricultural community represents only some 3 per cent. of the agricultural working population. That seems to be a reasonable call to make upon agriculturists. I am convinced, as I think are many hon. Members, that we shall need to grow all the food that we can in this country, and whether agriculture ought to make a 3 per cent, contribution to that call is a little beside the point. One should look at the question of where would a particular man serve his country best? If he is a key-man on the farm, he will be better employed on the farm than in the Army. That is the approach that I would like to see. Many farmers, if they lose a worker, experience no hardship, but there are cases where, say, a man of 20, the son of the farmer, for instance, on a small farm where his is the only additional labour, it may be a very great hardship if the man is called up. He may not be more skilled than any other agricultural worker, but if he is on a mixed farm and he knows a little about shepherding, the milking of cows, is a bit of a herdsman and can plough, it is a great hardship if the occupier of the farm has to lose such a man. To offer the occupier a woman land worker is no solution whatever. I do not want to say anything against the Women's Land Army—I hope that it will be very useful—but such women cannot take the place of a man of that sort.
I hope that farmers will take a broad view of the question of wages at the present time. I feel that to be a little mean in regard to wages might result in the failure to grow all the food which we shall very badly need in the future. The time has come when the agricultural worker should have the full recognition of his valuable work. There is the problem of drafting new labour into agriculture, and if we could at once settle the question of what is a reasonable standard for the agricultural worker, I believe the time would come when we should have to draft a lot of new labour and we should need a men's land army as well as a women's land army. But that, perhaps, is looking a little further ahead than to-day.
The last point I want to make is that I would like to see the fullest possible use made of all our agricultural land, whether ploughed up or arable, or grass land which will continue as grass land. Very much the largest part of our land is still, and will be, after the ploughing out campaign, under grass. British farming is, and will remain, predominantly livestock farming, in spite of this year's ploughing out campaign. One cannot repeat too often that even in East Anglia two-thirds of the income of the farmer comes to him In the sale of livestock, and grass is the basis of livestock farming. We recognise at the present time that there is a shortage of important feeding-stuffs. I do not want to raise the point now except to say that it will, no doubt, continue. It continued throughout the whole of the last war; it was one of the imports which was always short during that war. Therefore, we have to look toward the ploughing up campaign for providing some of it.
There is another way of providing foodstuffs for the livestock, which is the basis of agriculture, and that is by improving crops. There have been revolutionary improvements, which are not fully understood by farmers, in the methods and technique of improving grass. The work of Sir George Stapleton has quite revolutionised our ideas with regard to grass, but the average farmer does not understand that method yet, and I ask that the Minister should do something more than merely permit the war agricultural executives to approve the ploughing out, and the reseeding back again to grass of inferior grass land. I would like to see him pushing that with real energy. I impress upon him the need for this in areas where it would be most valuable, namely, in the hill farms in the north and west of England, in Scotland, and in Wales, which are the places where very frequently the farmers know less about this technique, and a really energetic campaign should be undertaken. Why not have films showing what Sir George Stapleton has succeeded in doing? Farmers like to go to film shows. Let us tackle the problem and put over that idea.

Mr. Quibell: Let them get on with farming.

Mr. Roberts: They would be glad during the winter to come and see what other farmers were doing to improve their land. The farmers are very ready to do

that. This is the time to do it, during the winter, not when they are busier in the summer. The whole policy of improving grassland is of vital importance.
In my part of the world during the last war when ploughing up was proceeding, the hill farms were overstocked with cattle during the summer. Those hill farms to-day could keep four or five times the amount of stock if farmers would plough them up and re-seed them.
There has been some confusion and uncertainty in the minds of farmers caused by the action of some Government Department in regard to the livestock guarantee. I suggest that the farmers would respond to leadership at the present time. They have confidence that the Minister of Agriculture understands their problem, and I would ask him to go ahead and ask them to produce more. They are confident that he is prepared to help them. Let him tell them the truth about the feeding-stuffs position, go ahead and give them leadership. If he will get amongst them and tell them more about what he wants them to do, we shall have a real response from the agricultural community.

3.8 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: It is a piece of good fortune that we have been able to discuss agricultural questions to-day, and the House will be grateful to the Opposition Liberals for having initiated the Debate. I understand that the Minister of Agriculture is going to speak; therefore I shall try to confine my remarks to the minimum, but there are two or three points of first class importance to agriculture, particularly in Scotland, although they do not apply only to Scotland, which I feel bound to raise. We have been talking about milk. We are all agreed with the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) that if you are to have a product produced in sufficient quantities in this country you must pay an adequate price for it. The same is true of labour and also of those highly skilled industrial mechanics of whom we spoke yesterday, but to whom I must not further refer. If it is right for the machine-tool maker to demand the maximum wage, otherwise he will not work, it is equally right for the farmer to demand an economic price for his goods.
I wish to refer to an important question which particularly affects my con-


stituency, and that is sugar beet. Sugar is of vital importance to the country at the present time. There is nothing of which I am more proud than the fact that I supported the Government in recent years in their sugar beet policy, while other parties opposed it. Whatever I may have done while I have been a Member of this House I am glad that I supported the Government in that policy, because it has proved to be a national service of high value. In Fife we have the only sugar beet factory in Scotland. For all practical purposes it now belongs to the Government and is State property. It is run by the Beet Sugar Corporation. The overhead expenditure is met out of State funds, and yet that factory is only working at half capacity. It might easily produce double the amount it is producing to-day. The reason for this state of affairs is that the producers of sugar beet in Scotland have not been given a sufficiently high price to induce them to grow that, rather than other things. During the last few days I have had communications from leading farmers and officials in Fife on this point. We are growing in that constituency I4,000 acres of turnips, at least half of which might be turned over to the growing of sugar beet if some slight arrangement were made.
The fixed price for sugar beet is 48s. 9d. per ton. The Sugar Beet Corporation also offers a grant for rail charges up to 10s a ton. Therefore, those in the furthest away places may get 55s. 9d. a ton for their sugar beet but we in Fife, because we are close to the factory, only get 48s. 9d., with but a penny or two more for carriage. There are farmers in Northumberland, Cumberland and other distant places who are growing sugar beet and having it carted all the way to Fife, the cartage costs being paid by the Government, and yet the men of Fife who could grow it just as well and much more economically from the point of view of transport are given only the minimum price. Those whom I represent have put to me a very simple proposition. The beet sugar contract today is 48s. 9d. a ton free on rail, with a further payment up to 10s. a ton for carriage. They suggest that there should be an alternative contract, which would not cost the Government much more than a few pence per ton more, spread over the

whole sugar beet industry. The suggestion is that there should be a delivered price for beet of 55s. 9d., which is the free on rail price of 48s. 9d., plus freight of 7s. per ton. I do not think that alternative contract, if it were taken up by farmers in Fife and surrounding districts, would cost more than a few pence per ton over the whole crop additional to what the Government is paying. What would be the result?
Last week the Minister of Food announced that every shopkeeper must curtail the sales of sugar to one pound per person per week. Why? Because, apparently, there is a very grave shortage of sugar. Yet we in Scotland could double our production of sugar. I do not know how our sugar beet production compares with the total sugar production, but we could double the output at a cost very much less than we are now meeting. I know that the Minister of Agriculture is not able to reply now, because the question of price is a matter for the Minister of Food, whose deputy is here. I have spoken to the Minister of Food on the matter, and I beg him, in the national interest, quite apart from the interests that I represent, to give the alternative proposal his very serious consideration.
Turning to other subjects, let me say that it is no use asking sheep producers to go on producing sheep in order to give you wool, unless you give them an adequate price for their wool. The price offered for black face wool in Scotland is—well it is not an offer at all. The Wool Control have offered no fixed price. It was only yesterday that we learned from the Minister of Supply that something is to be announced to-morrow. I hope the price is to be adequate. I am very glad that there was an announcement yesterday about potatoes, in regard to which there is to be no longer a maximum but a fixed price.
With regard to meat, an announcement was made yesterday by the Minister of Food which gave some idea of the plans for the future when his meat control scheme comes into operation. My hop. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby) asked a question which I have frequently asked, namely, whether in fixing the price for cattle the Minister would bear in mind the desirability of encouraging the production of


high quality cattle. The Minister made a reply which I have heard many times. He said that he would give due weight to the consideration which the hon. Member for East Aberdeen had mentioned. It is not good enough to repeat the formula "giving due weight." What the producers of high quality cattle want is an announcement that they will be recompensed by some higher price. This House has for many years past spent great sums of money in encouraging the production of high quality cattle; they have asked Scottish farmers to do so, and they have responded. Is it suggested that all that work is to be wasted? As it is, now that control has been temporarily lifted, buyers of beef, co-operative societies themselves, pay more for high quality cattle, and if that is the economic situation I cannot understand Low the Government refuse to face it.
There is another matter of the greatest importance to agriculture. It is all very well to give an adequate price and to encourage agriculture here and there, but it is foolish to do that if you take from agriculture the labour which is essential to the work of the farm. What is happening? I have many cases here, some of them most distressing cases. I have the case of a farm in Fife where the only son has been taken and the mother left. Once there were three ploughmen on the farm. She has advertised and applied to the local war committee but has received no response, and this farm with three pairs of horses is now lying utterly idle. I have the evidence of a member of the war executive in Fife who has made full inquiries, and he tells me that there are upwards of 50 pairs of horses now standing idle in the stables because men have been taken from the farms. Where is the sense of a policy which drags men forcibly from the farms, or refuses to allow them to go back, when at the same time another set of officials begs farmers to grow more food and plough up more land? The truth is that in some parts of the country the Government's increased ploughing policy is doomed to failure because the labour is not available to carry it out. I asked the Minister of War a question as to how many keymen on the farms he was going to release from the Army, and he told me that there had been released 140 men and that 360 wore to be temporarily released. There are hundreds of ploughmen in the

armed Forces about whom each of us knows, and when the need for labour on the farm is urgent the only response which the Minister of Agriculture gets from the War Office is 140 men from the whole of the British Army.
I have no criticism to make of the Minister of Agriculture, but I have the most direct criticism to make of the War Office for a policy which seems to me completely blind and against the public interest. I think the House should let the Minister of Agriculture know that he has the support of the whole House in demanding from the War Office a much greater volume of men released for essential agricultural purposes. Production of food is as essential a part of national Defence as is the military Defence of the realm, and it is madness to take from agriculture men who are essential to the production of food. Until that system is altered so that the Minister of Agriculture can get the full measure of labour which he needs, we shall have failed in our war effort.

3.20 p.m.

Mr. Quibell: I am pleased that we should have this Debate on agriculture but I regret that we are not able to discuss the subject adequately. I want to draw attention to one or two matters which, I think, are of great importance to agriculture. Hon. Members have already stressed the importance of ploughing up additional grassland, and I agree that so far as the country is concerned it should be far more self-supporting than it has been in the past. I am entirely in support of the policy of ploughing up more land, but I do not entirely accept the view that it is more important than to preserve grassland in order to raise our livestock, because I think a case can be made out for supporting more livestock than we do at the present. What we want more than anything else is a proper balanced economy in agriculture.
I differ materially and fundamentally from the advice which has been tendered to farmers as to what they should grow. I want to appeal to the Minister not to induce agriculturists to grow more potatoes next year. There is a surplus of potatoes this year, and if working men in the industrial areas will, as I believe, grow more potatoes on allotments it follows that less will be wanted from ordinary producers of potatoes.


There is also the fact that a large number of men will be out of this country during the period when potatoes are consumed and, therefore, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at the problem from that point of view. If there is a surplus of potatoes this year, there will be a bigger surplus next year. Again, the Government are going to give a guaranteed price. Is it to be a minimum price for potatoes for which there is a demand and which the farmer can market? If that is so then the right hon. Gentleman is not going to satisfy the agricultural industry, but if the State is going to guarantee a minimum price for potatoes for which there is no market then it will not be a very light burden which will be thrown on the Exchequer.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to send an urgent advice to the Agricultural Executive Committee to alter to some extent the policy which, I am afraid, they will suggest for potato production areas and to grow, instead, beans, peas and wheat, the feeding stuffs which we are likely to require and of which there is a shortage. There is a shortage now, and no one knows what it will be next year. A pig producer in my own area has had to sell 300 pigs when they were three score instead of keeping them until they are so score, because of the scarcity of feeding stuffs. Such cases, I am afraid, will be multiplied. So far as the potato policy is concerned, I should like to know whether the chain of factories has been erected? I understand that the functions of the Potato Marketing Board have been taken over by the Minister of food.
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me what has been done with the money raised by the levy on the producers of potatoes? To what use is that money being put, and does the right hon. Gentleman intend to implement the promises that was made when the levy was placed on agricultural interests for the purpose of building factories for processing the surplus potatoes that come on to the market periodically year by year? I am certain that the Minister of Agriculture regards this matter as an important one, and I trust that, instead of our having to put up with the pottering little market at Wisbech, the money that has accumulated as a result of the levy will be used to implement the promise which the right hon.

Gentleman made to the producers of potatoes, so that these potatoes may be used to supply both animal and human needs for manufactured potatoes.
I should like now to say a few words on the subject of drainage. In my part of the country—and I have seen this in other districts as well—land has been ploughed up and wheat has been sown, but some of the land in respect of which £2 an acre has been paid for its ploughing up, has been under water, and the w heat that was sown has gone. The land will have to be resown in the spring. Ever since I came to the House, in common with other hon. Members I have been pressing on the Minister of Agriculture and the House the necessity of doing something in regard to land drainage. In some cases a slight expenditure of money would put matters right. I am as anxious as anyone can be to make a success of the ploughing-up campaign and to get the land into use for the benefit of the country. If the farmers benefit from it, so much the better, but at the present time it is England that matters. I say that some of these drainage authorities are neglecting their duties in this matter. The Minister ought in certain cases to take steps to remedy the position and to prevent at any rate the spring crops from being ruined as a consequence of flooding.

3.28 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: I hope the Minister will forgive me if, before he replies, I make a few remarks concerning the announcement made by the Minister of Food with regard to the milk subsidy. Obviously, it will come into operation before the House reassembles after Christmas, and in view of the very great amount of expenditure to which that announcement commits the Government, I feel it is right that I should make some remarks on it now. Certainly, we on these benches raise no objection in principle to steps being taken to prevent a rise in the consumers' price of milk, because, like hon. Members in all parts of the House, we are anxious to promote the consumption of milk. I leave that side of the matter without any further remarks; but I am concerned about the manner in which the amount of the subsidy to the producers of milk has been arrived at and the manner in which it has been announced.
It is true that there was broadcast a few weeks ago, on behalf of the Milk Marketing Board, a news bulletin, in which they stated that they would require 4d. a gallon more for milk on behalf of the producers. Whether that quotation was justified or not is another matter, but the substance of the broadcast was that the price of milk would have to go up 4d., and obviously the delivery of the notice to the Central Milk Distributive Committee meant that there was to be a bargain negotiated between the two sides, the Milk Marketing Board for the producers, and the milk distributors. I say quite frankly that I have had to resist in some circles the suggestion that the 4d. which it was proposed should be put on the consumers' price should be made the subject of a bargain between the producers and the distributors by splitting it 2d. and 2d. It is fairly obvious, however, that, in any such bargain, the producers, in addition to having received an increase of 2½d. a gallon in respect of manufacturing milk, would have been glad to take the other 2d. in the bargain between the two sides in splitting the increase of 4d. in the consumers' price.
What has happened since then? In the first place, as my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) quoted, there was the suggestion of an agricultural authority, Mr. Heap, in the "D airy Farmer," that 1d. a gallon would have been enough for the producer. Let me say, on the other hand, that I have made inquiries during the last three or four weeks, in connection with the projected discussions that were to take place on milk prices, as to what were our own increased costs of production. All I can say is that my information bears out almost entirely the suggestion of Mr. Heap that the increased cost would have amounted to 1d. per gallon.
But what do the Government do? They get a series of accounts submitted by the Milk Marketing Board, which none of us has seen—for none of those who were interested in the general aspect of the milk trade were consulted—and on the basis of this, they announce that they will give a subsidy equal to 3d. a gallon which, according to the rough calculations have made this afternoon, will mean an expenditure from the Exchequer of over £3,000,000 for the whole of Great Britain for the first three months it is to cover,

and in respect of the remainder of the year, according to whether they are able to make some little saving in the amounts of summer production, certainly not less than £8,000,000 or £9,000,000, or, if the farmers succeed, with some other set of costings submitted at the end of March, in getting a payment of 3d. a gallon for the whole 12 months, £16,000,000, or 3½d. in the pound on the Income Tax, in respect of this one commodity alone. We are not against the principle of a subsidy for this important milk food which is vital to the nation, but whether it has been done on the initiative of the Minister of Agriculture, or the producers, or the Milk Marketing Board, or by the Minister of Food, we are getting here an example of methods of administration which cause us to repeat what the Leader of the Opposition said last night about the general war expenditure of the Government—we are very desirous of knowing whether we are getting value for our money. I am very anxious to see an increase in milk consumption, and I would support the Government in anything which is done effectively in relation to ascertained costs which have been properly checked; but the speed of this announcement and the profligacy of the amount are things to which the Minister had better give some further attention.

3.35 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Colonel Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith): I am glad of this opportunity to discuss some of the problems with which the agricultural industry is grappling to-day. I propose to cover a wide field, and I shall not go into exact details, because I understand that there will be an opportunity of debating the subject in greater detail when the House reassembles. As regards the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) about the price of milk, all that I can say is that my experience has been that the Ministry of Food are, generally, at great pains to drive a hard bargain in these matters, and must be well satisfied indeed as to what the costs are, before they are prepared to increase any price. But there is one thing which I think the right hon. Gentleman has left out of account, and which even Mr. Heap, who was quoted, may have left out of account. That is the real difficulty in getting feeding stuffs and the extra


expenditure involved in having to switch about from one form of food to another and the alteration of ratios. It is almost impossible, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree, and as hon. Members opposite who are acquainted with farming would also agree, to give an exact figure as to the effect on costs of these factors in any given year. I am afraid that is one of the incalculable factors which any Government Department or any Minister has to take into consideration in attempting to get milk supplies going.

Mr. J. Morgan: Has the Minister any evidence to show by how much milk production was reduced during November? Was it a substantial reduction?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I am afraid I have not the data here. To come back to the question of the agricultural industry generally, I think the House will realise that, as with other industries, we are asking agriculture since the start of this war to make a formidable effort. It is an effort which will require all the drive, all the energy, all the vigour which we possess. It is an effort which will probably prove vital, as indeed agriculture's efforts in the last war proved vital, to the success of our cause. The main feature of the campaign which has been inaugurated since the start of the war is the ploughing-up of 1,500,000 extra acres in England and Wales and 500,000 divided between Scotland and Northern Ireland. I shall have something to say later on the reasons which have prompted the Government to adopt that policy and also on the crops which we want to have put into that land.
I would like the House to be with me at the outset, however, in this proposition, that we are asking the industry in the first year of the war to complete a task which it took four years to complete in the last war. It has been said that this task is perhaps an impossible one. I am sure the House will agree that "impossible" is a word which must not be in our vocabulary while the war is in progress. I feel certain that the House will appreciate this fact also. Not only is the physical effort of ploughing up such a great additional amount of land a task of magnitude, but we shall be asking agriculturists to spend thousands of

pounds in altering the economic system on our farms. We shall be asking them to undertake new commitments, which, to them, will be heavy, and we shall be asking them to adopt methods of farming which, for one reason or another, have in peace-time proved uneconomic. It is too early, I fear, to give any exact figures to show how the ploughing-up campaign is progressing, but I can say without hesitation that the response which we have had has been more than merely heartening; it has been inspiring, and that, in spite of all the difficulties with which the farmers are still faced. I think this is one more concrete example of the fact that all sections of our community to-day are determined to do their allotted tasks in helping to bring victory to our cause.
As far as the direction of the campaign is concerned, the House is probably aware of the general make-up of the machinery. Briefly, it is this: As soon as war was declared, I was able to appoint county war agricultural executive committees and executive officers for each county in England and Wales. I was able to give them general directions for the conduct of the campaign, and they were able to start straight away, because they had been selected and warned beforehand. We heard often during the last war about the dangers and difficulties of farming from Whitehall. I hope we have taken steps to ensure that there shall be no cause for that complaint during the present war. While I do retain some measure of control, and rightly, the fact remains that I have given the county committees as free a hand as possible to get on with the job, and as they are men with very good local knowledge, I am confident that the machinery is the best which could be adopted to carry out this great task. Many farmers have vivid recollections of the difficulties which were created during the last war by being told to plough up fields which could never grow a crop and of being given directions which could never successfully be carried out. I hope that this time we shall be able to avoid anyway 99 per cent. of these mistakes, leaving just the i per cent. for human error. The task of deciding which fields should be ploughed and what should go into those fields is the business of these county war executive committees, and these work through their local district committees, who are, as it were, the eyes and the ears of the county committees,


and they have assistance in other ways, especially through specialist sub-committees for such matters as horticulture, labour, machinery, livestock and feeding-stuffs, supplies, drainage, and even pests and insects.
I would like to pay the highest possible tribute to the work which has been done by the members of these committees, and I am sure the House would like to thank teem for the time and energy which they have given to a very difficult task. I believe that when the history of this war does come to be written, the work of this great corps of volunteers will rank high in the national effort. One of the most invaluable things which these men and women, in going round the farms, have been able to do has been to give us a very accurate picture of the present condition of agriculture. They are independent people, representing no actual interest or body or anything like that. They are there for their own knowledge and experience, and from their visits to farms and to individual farmers they have been able to tell us of the real and genuine difficulties which, if allowed to continue, would seriously jeopardise the success of our campaign. I think it is true to say that from their reports we have been able to get a better and a more accurate picture of agricultural conditions than perhaps we have ever had before, and they have told us quite frankly of the adverse factors which are working and which prevent farmers from doing all that they would desire to do in the national interest. I think their reports really cover all the points which have been raised in this Debate, and if I may deal with them on those lines, I hope hon. Members will forgive me if I do not refer to their actual points now.
We are, as I say, trying to carry out this ob by the process of decentralisation to the greatest possible degree, and I am convinced that if we trust the men on the spot to do the real job and to see it through, that is the best way of doing it. It would be far too much to claim that this campaign has gone forward with uniform success. I could not claim that, because there have been great difficulties, which I do not seek to minimise, but they are difficulties which either have been overcome or are being overcome, or, as the hon. Member for North Cumberland

(Mr. W. Roberts) said, they are difficulties as to feeding-stuffs which we have to face and to realise that they will probably continue for the rest of the war. The difficulties which have been brought to our notice are difficulties familiar to hon. Members who have given this matter their attention, such as difficulties at the beginning with regard to supplies of certain classes of machinery. I can tell the House that we are catching up fast with the demand, and that we have now gradually and systematically dispersed that national reserve of, machinery which we had tried to collect before the war started. At present I am informed that the county agricultural committees really cannot deal with any more of the national pool tractors and implements.

Mr. J. Morgan: That they cannot use them?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: That the demands are satisfied, but the private demands, the demands on private account, for tractors and other machinery have been absolutely unprecedented, and I think it is a highly satisfactory thing that our industry has been able to catch up with that demand is so short a time. The other things which they always bring to our notice include the very serious scarcity of imported animal feeding-stuffs. We all know that it is so, and I think we all know why they are scarce. We know that we have to divert our shipping, that there is the question of exchange and so on, but I hope that the ingenious propaganda machinery of Dr. Goebbels will not try to get too much comfort out of the fact that we are going short of animal feeding-stuffs, because ships under our flag are still sailing here, but they have different cargoes, most of which, I suppose, will eventually be destined for Germany in a rather different form and not in a very palatable form for them.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the question of importing feeding-stuffs so that they can come in in the grain and not in milled form?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: All these things have been considered very carefully.

Mr. Smith: You have a vested interest to deal with there.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I think the Minister of Food can get across that. There is one persistent complaint, probably the most prominent complaint made to all county committees, and that is that, when you really get down to the individual farm and see w hat the individual producers can do, there is generally a lack of cash credit to enable them to fulfil their full functions. We have had reports from many districts of shortage of skilled workers and seasonal labourers, reports also on questions of land drainage, which have been brought very much to our notice, and, coupled with all these more specific reports, have been that underlying sense of insecurity, a fear for the future, which has been an adverse factor. We have taken due note of what these people, the county committees, have told us, and also what our other advisers have reported as being factors of importance if this campaign is to be a success. The Government have arrived at certain conclusions arising out of all these reports and of the experiences which we have gained since the war broke out, and I would like to tell the House of these conclusions, which I hope will remove once and for all any doubts which may linger in the minds of producers as to the intentions of the Government with regard to this campaign.
The House will forgive me if I re-state the general principles on which the Government's food production policy is based, and what I am going to say, I must make it clear, applies also to Scotland and to Northern Ireland—the United Kingdom as a whole. The House will agree that it is essential to make the most efficient and economical use of all our resources, be they financial, shipping, industry, or land, and develop them to the fullest possible extent. Much was done before the war started under the Wheat Act, the Land Drainage Act, the Livestock and Sugar Beet Acts, and the land fertility scheme to assist agricultural production and improve the fertility of the land, but the productive capacity of the land still can be greatly increased. There can be no doubt about that, and the more we can produce from it, the more foreign exchange and shipping we can save for the purchase and import of raw materials and munitions and other things for our war effort. It is true to say that our arable land, that is, land which is

now under arable, has as high an average yield as it ever had in the past.
It is true to say also that our best pastures provide as large quantities of food per acre for sheep and cattle as they ever did in the past. I think there is general agreement that what we must do is to plough up those millions of acres of second and third-rate grasslands which are yielding only a fraction of what they once yielded, both in human food and animal feeding-stuffs. There was a time when land of this kind not only produced large quantities of wheat, but also provided the whole of the feeding necessities of a large population of animals, indeed, the most remarkable feature of the decline in the productivity of our land over the last half-century has been the decline in the production of animal feeding-stuffs from the land. It is unnecessary, for me to discuss the economic or other reasons which have brought this about and which have led to an increasing reliance on imported feeding-stuffs for our animals. It is obvious, however, that to-day we cannot allow so large a portion of our land to continue merely to produce poor grazings and hay. It must be made to produce other crops or good nutritious grass.
Our plan is to secure the ploughing-up of 1,500,000 extra acres in England and Wales and 2,000,000 in the United Kingdom as a whole before next summer. The Government attach the greatest importance to the fulfilment of this programme. We want to grow more wheat on land which is capable of growing wheat and which will give a good wheat crop. We want also to get an extra production of potatoes; but we can also, as the hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell) has pointed out, save our shipping by reducing as far as possible our dependence on imported animal feeding-stuffs by growing oats, barley, beans, peas and fodder crops, or re-seeding where this is desirable. Last year we imported something like 7,500,000 tons of animal feeding-stuffs alone, and that is where we can make a tremendous contribution to our shipping problems. The policy of the Government is, therefore, to allow as much latitude as possible in cropping, but farmers who are primarily concerned, either in milk or in livestock, especially in milk, should in their own interest as well as the national interest try to make


themselves more self-sufficient in food for their stock.
A ploughing-up campaign of this magnitude calls for very great efforts on the part of all concerned, both fanners and workers. Both must be assured of a fair return for what they are called upon to do. While it is the producers' job to prod ice, it is the Government's job to see bat conditions are created which will enable the producers to deliver the goods. The Government recognise, therefore, that if the desired increase in home production is to be secured, a higher level of prices will be necessary for agricultural products generally We must avoid extravagant or uncontrolled prices such as those which occurred in the last war. They not only occurred then, but eventually led to disaster for agriculture itself But given a level of prices which will provide a reasonable return to the farmers and enable them to pay a fair wage to the workers, we can, I believe, if the weather permits—and any Minister of Agriculture is allowed to put in that proviso—get that 2,000,000 acres ploughed up and relieve the strain on our shipping by saving a very large tonnage of imports of food and feeding-stuffs.
As regards wages, the difficulties which have been created by the present level of agricultural wages in relation to wages in other industries or occupations are generally recognised. It has also been represented to me by the workers' unions that t he machinery for regulating agricultural wages at the present moment is unsatisfactory and has led to many anomalies. Discussions are now going on between the workers and the farmers as to that machinery, and I express the confident hope that a satisfactory outcome will be the result of those deliberations. But I would say again in this connection that the Government, for their part, recognise that in fixing agricultural prices regard must be paid to the need for a reasonable wage to the worker.
There is another matter which I think is of as much importance to the farmer and to the farm worker as the level of prices in the immediate future. Our policy for increasing the productivity of the land must be one which farmers can follow with confidence. To do what the Government ask and what the national needs require farmers will, as I have pointed out, have in many cases to change their farming system, and in any

case will have to plan for several years ahead. Therefore, the industry—both the workers and the farmers themselves—is entitled to expect a reasonable measure of security. In framing and developing our war-time policy for production the Government are determined to avoid creating a situation which would lead to the disasters which followed the last war. That is why we are in favour of a moderate and controlled increase in prices and not an exaggerated increase. That is why we are encouraging the utmost latitude and flexibility in cropping the newly-ploughed land. That is why we are urging farmers to make themselves more self-sufficient in feeding-stuffs for their livestock and not concentrate solely on the production of corn and potatoes. By this policy we believe that we can keep agriculture on a properly balanced system as well as secure the maximum increase in productivity and the maximum saving of shipping. The Government also believe that this policy will enable any transition there may be from wartime to peace-time conditions to be effected with full regard being paid to the necessity for avoiding sudden and drastic changes in agricultural policy.
There are certain further steps which the Government propose to take which, I think, meet quite a lot of the points which have been raised to-day. I have referred, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) referred, to the need for preventing the drift of workers from the land. Further consideration is now being given to the problem of reconciling the claims on man-power for the purpose of food production with the claims on man-power for the Fighting Forces. It is a very difficult problem, but earnest consideration is being given to it. Again, the Government propose to extend the present arrangement—I think this will be of special interest to the hon. Member for North Cumberland—under which the county war executive committees can help those farmers who are unable to finance the ploughing-up of land for cultivation under compulsory orders, by undertaking the work and recovering the cost, which is an alteration of the old procedure under which they had to take over the whole farm. Also—and this will, I think, interest the hon. Member for Brigg—the Government propose to take further steps to secure the better draining of land


which is potentially fertile but which is at present waterlogged. They will take steps which will enable the county committees to undertake or to finance on a more general scale than hitherto the cultivation of areas of derelict or semi-derelict land which are found in many counties. I hope to be able to make detailed statements on these arrangement, in the near future.
I would like to add one thing. Many county committees have made representations to us that, if possession is taken of derelict or badly cultivated land with a view to increasing food production, it is essential that possession should be retained for a period sufficiently long to enable expenditure by or on behalf of the committees to be recouped. I realise that if we are to deal with land of this character, it will take time to get it into full production. Therefore, I propose to ask Parliament to confer the necessary powers enabling possession to be retained for a period of not less than two years after the termination of the war.

Mr. J. Morgan: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman proposing to provide money for the drainage in order to enable the county committees to carry out the work with capital lent by him?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: As I said, I want to make a full announcement about this matter later on. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not tie me down to this matter at this moment.

An Hon. Member: What about fruit?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: That falls to be dealt with at a later stage.

Mr. Lloyd George: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is to make an announcement of great importance about the help that is to be given to drainage by means of grants from the Government. When will he be able to make that announcement?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I hope to be in a position to make it immediately the House reassembles. If we can get all the information through before the House reassembles, we might possibly get into touch with the county committees to give an indication of the kind of thing we have in mind. I want to get on with this job as soon as possible. There is one other thing. When we have put

forth all the energy that we have, and have completed successfully our campaign for 2,000,000 acres ploughed up, we may, in the event of the war continuing, have to start yet another campaign for ploughing up. In that event, the Government would propose to ask Parliament to allow the L2 an acre to continue for another year beyond 31st March next. I think my statement has covered nearly all the points which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have raised. I have outlined in broad perspective the task which the industry has been set—

ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned,

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1.—Expiring Laws Continuance Act. 1939.
2.—Postponement of Enactments (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1939.

And to the following Measure passed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919.

House of Laity (Postponement of Election) Measure, 1939.

MILK PRICES AND AGRICULTURAL POLICY.

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

4.15 p.m.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: I would like to raise one point before my right hon. and gallant Friend leaves the Front Bench. It has to do with the agricultural problem, and no doubt I shall have the sympathy of other hon. Members representing agricultural constituencies. It is a matter which we have discussed before with my right hon. Friend, but I want to make a final appeal to him now as we are about to adjourn for a month. I refer to the question of the requisitioning of land by other Departments of the Government. My right hon. and gallant Friend has adumbrated and sketched out his agricultural policy, and I am sure that we agree with him and wish to give him every encouragement, as we believe that agriculture is the fourth arm of defence. We


trust that the proposals which he has initiated will bear fruit, and will help the agricultural industry, but I am quite sure that if, at the same time, other Departments of State are to take over some of the most productive agricultural land in this country, as is being done at the present time, the policy which my right lion. Friend has adumbrated and sketched to the House will certainly not develop, because the very acreage that we want will be drastically cut down at a time when we most need the agricultural use of that land.
I have had experience in my own county during the last few months of an estate of 3,000 acres being taken by another Department of State involving the loss to agriculture of that 3,000 acres of land and the disturbance of 85 families, who had been on that land, some of them for generations with their families. It has involved the immediate requisitioning of a considerable portion of that acreage, and the sale of stock in a surplus market locally—in fact it was impossible to dispose of the stock—with most serious repercussions on the agricultural industry in the area and upon agriculture as a whole. And now in addition to that, right in the heart of my constituency, which contains probably the best grazing land in the United Kingdom, I have been informed by land agents that the Army Department has come along and taken a fancy to a particular thousand acres there. I am sure that if my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture were to send out his experts and ask them to bring to his notice some of the finest agricultural land in the United Kingdom they could not bring to his notice better land than this prticular thousand acres that I have in mind at the present time.
A tenant farm on that land sold three weeks ago for £100 an acre. The Army Department probably knows that it is fairly well sheltered, is in a fertile valley surrounded by mountains, and is far away from attack by hostile aeroplanes. I am glad to say, however, that there is every prospect that, in regard to this last particular piece of land, the requisitioning which I am bringing to the attention of the House may be averted. I appeal to my right hon. and gallant Friend to bring this matter before the War Cabinet again. I know that he has made endeavours before, but I am certain

that not sufficient consideration is being given to the character of the land that is being requisitioned. Not enough time is taken in order to find out whether there is other available land in the vicinity or in any other part of the United Kingdom.
I do not think that the air question now is a matter of such immense importance that we could not limit some of our factories to areas where there is a large amount of derelict land, which was utilised in the last war. There are, for instance, places like Gretna, where buildings were put up during the last war at the cost of hundreds of thousands of pounds, which are derelict to-day, and where the land could be used. I appeal not only on behalf of my constituency but on behalf of an industry which is of great importance. I would ask my right hon. Friend to bring the matter before the War Cabinet, that as a matter of policy no land in this country should be requisitioned at the present juncture, where it is productive in valuable agricultural land, unless it can be proved quite conclusively that there is no other available site available anywhere in the vicinity or in some other vicinity which is considered desirable. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would have the agricultural industry behind him and the good will of those who consider that the economic situation of the country is such that requisitioning of this character cannot be in the best interests of the State.

4.23 p.m.

Dr. Summerskill: I should like to say something on the milk policy of the Government as expounded by the Minister of Food this afternoon. I listened very attentively to everything he said, but I confess that I did not experience that pleasure at his statement of the Government's future policy which other speakers experienced. We heard him express sympathy with the farmers, the distributors, the Milk Marketing Board with its difficulties, and he did not forget to mention the cow which also experiences difficulties when she has a change of food; but one section of the community which should have been mentioned and was not, is the consuming section of the community. I have every sympathy with the farmers, the producers and the distributors, but I must confess that if the policy expounded this afternoon is followed, even though the price of milk is not to be raised, the


Government is not encouraging the consumer in any way to buy more milk.
Government speakers tell us that food is as important as munitions in time of war. It should, therefore, be an important part of the milk policy of the Government to encourage the consumption of milk. Not only that, but I hoped the Minister of Food and the Minister of Agriculture had put their heads together and decided that if rationing is to be introduced, if the people for the first time since the last war are going to be asked to limit their consumption of most important foodstuffs, bacon, butter, sugar and meat, then surely a constructive Government should come forward and say that as they are going to ask the people to limit themselves in certain foodstuffs they are at the same time going to give them a very important substitute at a reduced price. That seems to me elementary common sense.
The hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) quoted various learned authorities on nutrition, but what he said did not seem to interest the Government a great deal, because he was quoting pamphlets which have been issued during the last ten years and which perhaps they have heard before. May I remind the Government of a recent article by Professor Mottram in which he says that if the health of the people is to be maintained in time of war the consumption of milk should be increased. In my opinion an excellent substitute, I do not say it is a complete substitute, for the articles of food which are going to be rationed after 8th January is milk. It is a short-sighted policy on the part of the Government to say that the price is not going to be increased and to take no measures of any kind to increase the consumption of milk. Let me remind the Government of what happened in 1918 when the same policy was followed, when rationing had been introduced, and when the resistance of the people had fallen to a very low level. In 1918 we had one of the worst influenza epidemics the world has ever known. From time to time we have heard about the marriage of health to agriculture. This ceremony has been overdue for a long time, it has been postponed year after year, and I am beginning to wonder whether, at any rate in the lifetime of this Government, we shall celebrate this happy union.
What I have said has not only to do with the quantity of milk supplied but also with the quality of the milk supplied. Have the Government taken any steps to maintain the quality of the milk supplied? The Minister of Food says that in the future the Government will control the whole milk policy of the nation, but he did not remind the House, and I can quite understand that he did not like to remind the House, that while they are dealing with the quantity of milk the quality leaves very much to be desired, because 40 per cent. of the cows in this country suffer from tuberculosis. It has been said in this House before and cannot be contradicted—it is an absolute fact—that 40 per cent. of the cows suffer from tuberculosis.
What is the position to-day? The Minister of Food said that the most important customers of the Milk Marketing Board, the children, had been removed from the towns to the country. I wonder if the House realises how serious the position is to-day. In the big towns the big milk combines all sell pasteurised milk, not because they are cranks but because they know that to test all milk by a tuberculin test is expensive and the only way to supply safe milk is to supply pasteurised milk. During the last three months, the children of the towns were suddenly dispersed into the country districts, where there are no pasteurisation plants. I am not exaggerating when I say that our evacuated children have been sent to areas which are supposed to be not vulnerable to bombs, but which are in fact vulnerable to tuberculosis. This matter has been raised in the House on one or two occasions. I remember that during the first week of the evacuation, I asked the Minister of Health what he proposed to do about this question. I said that the children in the country were drinking raw infected milk. He did not deny the fact, but said that, surely, that was a small question, and ought we not to congratulate ourselves on the fact that we had removed the children from the vulnerable areas, and that there was very little risk of their being bombed? Really, I cannot conceive of any more ridiculous argument. I agree that we have removed the children from the danger of being bombed, but because we have removed them from what might be regarded as a spectacular death by


bombing, should we he comforted in knowing that they are in the country now being infected with tubercular milk, and that, in fact, many of them will die from a death which is less spectacular but which is insidious and certain. This is no exaggeration. Hon. Members have only to look at the statistics of the Ministry of Health and they will find that 2,000 children died last year from surgical tuberculosis in a great part due to milk-borne infection.

Lord Apsley: Were those cases in town areas or country areas?

Dr. Summerskill: They were scattered throughout the country. The Noble Lord may smile, but I am not quoting my personal view. I am not quoting the views of a little group of "cranks." I am quoting statements made by committees such as the Milk Nutrition Committee. I am quoting the British Medical Association. I am quoting some of the best-known scientists in the country. It is not a question of a handful of people. This is something that is well known. The Government know it, because last Christmas the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food, who was then Minister of Agriculture, was about to introduce a Milk Bill. I would remind hon. Members that Part 7 of that Bill, which was in my opinion one of the most important parts of the Bill, contained a very wise prov5sion. If the Bill had become an Act, that part would have allowed the local authorities to prohibit any milk which was unpasteurised being sold in their areas. If I am echoing the views of "cranks," why did the National Government want to introduce a Bill of that sort last Christmas? In those days, I was very simple and naive in matters of Parliamentary procedure, and I remember going to the Minister of Agriculture in my enthusiasm and congratulating him, and saying that it was one of the finest reforms that had ever been introduced in the House. Within a few weeks the vested interests had read the Bill. The machine began to work. The vested interests began to bring pressure on the Government, and this wise provision, which would have prevented hundreds of deaths from bovine tuberculosis in this country, was dropped. It was pitiful.
I realised then that it was one thing for a Minister to introduce a proposal, but quite another for that proposal to become

law. So I would remind the hon. Member who interrupted me earlier that the Government held the views which I have been expressing. Everybody who has studied the subject knows that it is absolutely immoral that there should be traffic in this infected milk. It is even more immoral than making profit out of the sale of armaments. I conclude by asking the Government when they will introduce some provision which will not only increase the consumption of milk, but will also guarantee that every child in this country is getting milk free from infection.

4.36 p.m.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Everybody will agree that it is desirable that the public should drink more milk, but I do not think the hon. Lady has given due weight to the work of the Milk Publicity Board, which has, with the support of the Government, done a great deal to encourage the consumption of milk. It should be remembered, too, that although less liquid milk is consumed in this country than in some other countries, there is no other country in which milk products in manufactured form are consumed to such a large extent. It is not always wise to look at this question purely as one of liquid milk consumption, although I am one of those who would like to see a much greater quantity of liquid milk consumed in this country. While the hon. Lady blames the Government for not encouraging the consumption of more liquid milk, she does what a large number of her profession, I fear, have been doing for a long time past. She switches over immediately to frightening people off the consumption of milk.

Dr. Summerskill: I want them to drink milk, but I want it to be clean milk.

Sir J. Lamb: The hon. Lady quotes figures which would frighten the public into believing that the bulk of the milk produced is not as good as it ought to be. That is not true. If a sample is taken of undesirable milk, unless you know the volume which it represents, you cannot say that the percentage shown by that sample can be spread over the whole of the milk produced. Speaking generally, the bulk of the milk produced in large quantities in this country is of very high quality. It is only in the case of small quantities produced under unsatisfactory


conditions, that you get a large percentage of analytical results which are not satisfactory and those percentages must not be taken as applying to the bulk of the milk consumed.

Dr. Summerskill: It is difficult to carry figures in one's head, but I believe that in Middlesex in 1937, out of 100 specimens of milk taken from dairies and farms seven were found to be alive with tuberculosis bacilli.

Sir J. Lamb: I do not like the expression "alive with bacilli." The milk must be alive with something or it would not be worth much, and it has been said that there are bacilli which are beneficial. But when the hon. Lady says that 40 per cent. of the herds of the country are infected with tuberculosis, I question whether that is correct. Even if the figure is correct it may be the result of reaction from test to test over a very small percentage. I have always understood that the more milk is drunk the greater is the power of resistance of those who drink it, to infection which might be there. I wonder whether the hon. Lady would say, if she examined the air that she is breathing, say, in this place or at any rate in some of the trains or tramcars, how many of those samples would be infected. I am sure there would be a tremendous number, but she would not say that therefore she must not continue to breathe. It is all a question of comparison. Much has been done to improve the quality of the milk—far more, perhaps, than the hon. Lady or others appreciate. Unfortunately, the war has stopped a great deal that the Ministry was doing being continued. We hope the time will come when these great milk efforts can be continued and when we shall get better results, but let it not be understood that the milk producers of this country are desirous of supplying to the public something which is not good and sound. That is their great desire, and they have done a good deal and are willing to do anything that is possible, but do not let us, while we are continuing these efforts, say to the public, without qualification, something which will do far more to discourage them taking milk than the hon. Lady opposite may recognise.

4.42 p.m.

Lord Apsley: There is one question of importance that I would like to raise, and that is the question of the ploughing-up of pasture land, which in some areas is being done extremely well and with great care, but in other districts, has been done extremely badly. I have seen some of the most disastrous ploughing-up of low lying pasture, which was good pasture, only needing the drains dug out and further ditches made to be made into good arable, and in the course of the ploughing the drains were stopped up. That land will always remain waterlogged until a new stystem of surface drainage has been put in. More attention should have been paid by the Ministry of Agriculture to this question of drainage, and I view with considerable alarm the lack of fertility that will be caused in many areas, due partly to lack of drainage and partly to soil erosion. Those are two questions which must be dealt with. Those who, like the big graziers in Warwickshire and Leicestershire, know their job, do it well, but in many other parts where land has been sold up and grazing has fallen off sadly, in the course of time the pasture has become derelict. The only remedy is the plough, and I fear that very serious results may follow, which will undoubtedly affect our milk supply. It is one of the most important things that we must consider, because, after all, there is not likely in war time to be a shortage of wheat or oats. In fact, as far as I can see, there will be a severe slump, and many of the farmers who have ploughed up their land will find difficulty in selling their arable produce, except for feedingstuffs, and that is only a limited question.
There may be a shortage of milk, however, and I view with considerable alarm the fact that there has been in some pasture land areas where men have been told to plough up so much land regardless of whether or not it was suitable. The inspectors have come and said, "You must plough up this field or that field," and I have seen dairy farmers put into very great difficulties, and in some cases they have gone out of business and slaughtered their cattle, because they have had to plough up fields which were invaluable to the economy of their farms. I hope the Ministry of Agriculture will


send round a warning to all local authorities that this ploughing-up must be done with great care, or far more damage and difficulty will be caused to farming, and much greater lack of production will result, instead of a greater production of milk particularly.
Now, if I may, I will allude shortly to the question raised by the hon. Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill), namely, pasteurised milk. I thought that question had been debunked long ago, especially by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten). Doctors do not always agree, and it is quite easy to get one learned set of medical authorities to say one thing and another set to say something entirely different.

Dr. Guest: Not about milk.

Dr. Summerskill: They are unanimous.

Lord Apsley: I have never known any doctors unanimous about anything. I do not think the farmers are concerned in this matter, but I believe that there is considerable interest at the back of it which is making pasteurised milk and selling it at a great profit. A learned professor in Edinburgh told me that they had conducted a series of experiments on children in Scotland with pastuerised and unpastuerised milk to see which has the best effect. They found that the pastuerised milk was so lacking in nourishment that the children became more liable to disease for that reason alone. As regards infection, he told me that if pastuerised milk were poured into a cup and a fly just put a foot into it, it would react to a severe tubercular test. It cannot be kept clear from infection. Only fresh, good Grade A milk is of benefit to children. The only reason I interrupted the hon. Lady was to ask whether the children who had tuberculosis were in country districts or in towns. Her point would have been good if she could have proved that children infected from tuberculosis increased in the country districts. She quoted Middlesex, but that is not a country area. Pastuerised milk may be infected in the towns, for you have only to put a finger in it to infect it. A good deal of nonsense is talked about pastuerised milk. It is so lacking in nutritive qualities that if you do not get infection from it you do not get nutrition.

Dr. Guest: I would draw the Noble Lord's attention to the report published by the Milk Marketing Board dealing with an experiment on over 6,000 children with pasteurised and non-pasteurised milk, saying that the nutritional difference between the two was insignificant. That is a report published by the board under the auspices of the Government.

Lord Apsley: I prefer the opinion of my medical professor. Whenever I see the names of any learned medical men on a back of a food or medicine which is supposed to have great curative power, I always feel doubtful, for it is always possible to find other medical men who take a different view.

Dr. Summerskill: The Noble Lord is suggesting that somebody is running pasteurised milk as a racket, but does he know that the price of it is the same as unpasturised milk?

Lord Apsley: I am afraid I do not. I have not the figures with me, but I think the price of pasteurised milk is considerably higher than fresh grade A milk. I should be surprised to find that pasteurised milk can be got cheaper, unless some of the nutriment is taken out of it and used for some by-product. If that is so it is more to the detriment of pasteurised milk. I hope that the important question of pastures will be taken up by the Minister of Agriculture because I believe that when there is a war and everything is pooled, there may be a danger of damage to the milk industry owing to reckless ploughing. I hope that care will be taken to see that the authorities concerned are putting men to the job who are practical farmers and know how it should be done.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Montague: May I as, shall I say, a Cockney who would hardly know the difference between one end of a cow and the other, have the last word in this Debate, in order to bring back the Members who are left here to what I consider the essentials of the problems of milk production and distribution? In most discussions the question is looked at from the wrong angle. The milk problem will not be solved until it is considered from the point of view of the people who need milk—from the point of view of the purpose for which milk, or any other food, is produced, and that is the satisfaction


of the needs of the community. I would draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that the organisation with which Sir John Orr is associated and which deals with nutrition has published a list of the foodstuffs, including milk, which are consumed by the average well-to-do family and the average poor family, and from it I find that the consumption of milk is 84 pints per head per year in the poor family as against 296 pints in the case of the well-to-do family. Until we can remove that difference in consumption by different sections of the community we shall not solve any agricultural problem whatever. If that quantity of milk per head is regarded as necessary for the members of a well-to-do family it is equally necessary for the members of a poor family.
Not only have we to consider the case of the milk producer, the farmer, but also the organisation of the distribution of milk. Figures have been published showing that the cost of distribution in the case of the milk supplied to children in schools, who are provided with it either free or for a very small payment, is only 50 per cent. what it is in the case of the ordinary retail trade, and the figures published by the co-operative movement show much the same results, although the comparison is not quite so steep. It is possible to organise the distribution of milk much more cheaply than at the present time, and out of that saving we ought to find some means whereby the people who are consuming only 84 pints per head per year get a quan-

tity of milk more reasonably approaching that consumed by the members of a well-to-do family.
I believe that we shall never solve the problems of either the agriculturist or of the people who need milk and other foods until we make the elementary necessities of life public services, until we can say to the producers, "The people want so much milk, so much bread and so much greenstuffs in order to keep fit and healthy; produce, so far as you have the power to do so, and you will find a market for it." We can do that if we make food production a public service. We do it in the case of water. We do not ask people to consider the problem of over-production in the case of water; we make water a public service. I do not say that we can do exactly the same with milk, but if some of the brains in the country, not to speak of the brains on the Treasury Bench, were directed towards this problem of distribution and the possibility of making the elementary necessities of life public services, the effect would be to wipe destitution and poverty from the face of the country. Until that is done I fear that we shall always have the farmer grumbling about his remuneration and the people going short of the necessities of life.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes before Five of the Clock until Tuesday, 16th January, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 13th December.